On selfishness

From: Gene

Subject: On selfishness 

Date: April 16, 2014 8:28:46 AM EDT

To: "Letters (National Post)"

Cc: Allen Small

Patrick MacKinnon states in Letters today under  Moving Thoughts that "Capitalism with its varying degrees of success exists because evolution has enabled the selfish to survive with prosperity for some but not for all." 

Ayn Rand wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness" in 1964 to explain that selfishness is an indispensable human trait that guides everyone quest for survival. Unfortunately, 'selfish' is all too often used in a pejorative way as Mr. MacKinnon has done here. There are many reasons for capitalism's success, and if the positive terms 'personal initiative', 'industriousness' and 'creativity' were associated with the term 'selfish',  then 'capitalism' would be seen in the positive context that it deserves.  

In Mr. MacKinnon's statement, however, the term 'selfish' could legitimately be used disparagingly to the human actions that are associated with many political organizations, such as public service labour unions, who truly act to bully the public at large so as to favour only those who are members of their union.

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill

The economically unsound "living wage" policy of the NDP

On reading "New Report" by Grace Macaluso on April 10, 2014, in the Windsor Star, it revealed that Canada was excluded from the $17.6 billion in the global automotive assembly investments made last year.

This fact comes as no surprise to me. I have been working with a Canadian consulting company that offers business transformation consulting services to automotive manufacturers in North and South America, and I have been aware of the gradual movement of automotive manufacturing operations from Ontario and the rest of Canada to more investment-friendly jurisdictions. 

Yesterday, I spent a very enjoyable three hours riding bicycles with a longtime friend who happens to live in the High Park region of Toronto which has a population that is responds well to the labor policies of left-wing parties such as the Ontario Liberals and NDP. The NDP, in particular, believes that every citizen is entitled to a "living wage". 

My friend claims to have completed a university level course in Economics in the 1970s. However, in espousing and supporting the "living wage" doctrine, he reveals how little he understands about Economics in the current business climate that has embraced international trade on a scale never seen before in world history. Investment capital is highly mobile and seeks the best opportunities for its owners, and rightly so. Where capital goes, so do jobs.

While having lunch, I asked my friend to tell me why he thinks we are losing manufacturing jobs in Ontario. He told me that he thought it was political. I then asked him to consider what criteria he may consider if he were an executive of an Ontario-based automobile manufacturing operation that was struggling to control costs so as to maintain profitability in a highly competitive market. My friend did not understand my question. I then asked him to name some of the top costs associated with manufacturing operations and asked him what he may do to reduce these costs. 

When organized labor costs were aired, he did not consider it advisable, or even feasible, too reduce these costs on the basis that it would be unfair to the workers who need to maintain a living wage. When energy costs were considered, he was aware that these had been climbing steadily, but were under political control and, consequently, were unlikely to be reduced. Finally, my friend had not considered the cost to comply with government regulations which often incurs large costs that are difficult to quantify.

I explained to my friend that the one thing that all three of these cost areas had in common was that the government had a high degree of influence on them, and without government involvement, these costs may not represent the competitive threats that they do today. Ironically, in the attempt of politicians to protect our interests, they unwittingly have destroyed the interests of many workers who once were employed in a once thriving and profitable Ontario manufacturing sector.

The "living wage" argument is an interesting one because few people analyze the unintended consequences of this policy. My friend argues the NDP claim that it was the labor union movement in Canada that was responsible for the creation of Canada's middle-class in the 1950s through 1970s. There may be some shred of truth in this claim, but it is not the entire story. However, it sells well to those who are currently in the middle class and who aspire to achieving middle-class economic status in the future. 

My friend also claims that, by eroding the "living wage", citizens will not earn enough to drive the economy through consumer purchases;  there will be more economic unrest amongst the population which will lead to increases in civil unrest and criminal behavior ; and there will be increased demand on our government welfare expenditures resulting from higher levels of unemployment and/or underemployment. There may also be some truth to these claims, but these scenarios are not the only possible outcomes.

Going back to our earlier hypothetical scenario of placing my friend in the role of manufacturing executive, we revisited the discussion of what he might do to fine tune the business model of his manufacturing operation in order to remain competitively viable. We both agreed that a profitable business was better then no business at all for all parties - the government will continue to collect taxes from the workers and from the business; the workers can collect wages instead of collecting unemployment insurance payments from government welfare rolls; local business enterprises which serve the company and which provide food, clothing, transportation, entertainment and other services to the workers would also benefit; and the customers of the business would continue to receive the products and services they have come to know and appreciate.

However, global trading is the reality today in every country of the world. Each country has inherent trading advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, countries that possess the climate and soil to grow bananas will do so to their competitive advantage in the world market; however, they will not mine oil if it is not one of its inherent advantages. This capitalization on natural advantages is how competitive world trade works -  it is the process by which business winners take hold and thrive and where business losers shed their less productive use of capital and labour resources in every country. Ultimately, unfettered markets will allocate resources in ways that best serve the citizens through the competitive forces within every society.

In such an economic climate, it is difficult to maintain a strict "living wage" policy because factors of production must be dynamic and adjustable to meet ever-changing market realities. To make firm policies that restrict or prevent the needed adjustments that shape viable business models is to use government regulations to inevitably condemn private business enterprises to the dustbins of history. 

Government mandarins do not experientially appreciate and understand the forces of competition in free markets  because their livelihoods are not dependent on profit or loss. For this reason, they are the least qualified members of society to issue policies that handcuff businesses. The best role for politicians and governments in the economy is to get out of the way of businesses, with the sole exception of protecting the property rights, including personal safety, of every citizen without bias.

As I tried to explain this to my friend, he was unable to "hear it" because he has been so deeply influenced by the NDP rhetoric that is ubiquitous within his community. This fact saddens me because, while a highly intelligent person in other areas of his life, he has swallowed the NDP message hook, line and sinker without applying any critical economic thinking.  It is the same story with the majority of our citizens who have been employed in the public sector and sheltered from any firsthand experience of working in a business that must be profitable in order to survive. The same can be said of regular readers of the Toronto Star, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other socialist leaning media purveyors who have also dispensed a form of thinking that completely ignores the immutable laws of pricing theory, supply and demand economics, and property rights.

I have been asked many times why I continue to run as a Libertarian candidate in the Ontario provincial elections. The answer is simple. I have spent over seven years reading and studying economics, and had seen through the lies and abuses of our political leaders and are government operations. 

Knowledge is a powerful thing, but it is also a two edge sword. One edge cuts cleanly through the dense undergrowth of government policy and taxation objectives, and leads one with a clear understanding of the immorality of government at its core. The other edge creates pain and frustration in possessing this knowledge and it is this pain and frustration that motivates me to do whatever I can to protect my family and my love ones from these abuses. For this reason, I see my political role as one of educator and messenger. I seek any citizen who is receptive to protecting their families and loved ones as I do. My friend is not receptive to this message, at least not at this stage in his life, but others are, and it is my task to find them and to help them understand.

I pledge to carry on this thankless mission for long as I can. 

Dalton McGuinty committed the Bernie Madoff folly

While reading "When Kathleen sued Tim" in the National Post today (April 7, 2014), it re-opened a festering sore in me that is linked to the gas plant scandal and inflamed my simmering anger at Premier McGuinty for his self-serving political actions preceding the 2011 election, and for the subsequent (alleged) email coverup operation.

This entire episode in Ontario's political history tells a compelling story of a profound beach of trust by Mr. McGuinty. As Ontario's elected Premier and Chief Protector of the interests of the people who elected him ( I was not one of them), he was entrusted to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on "investments" to  benefit us rather than his political goals.

Given that the gas plant decision has cost us $1.3 Billion, I consider this breach of trust to be par with to that of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated on many investors who entrusted Bernie Madoff to look out for their financial interests and who has since been tried for fraud and convicted to serve several lifetimes in prison. 

It is my hope that Kathleen's legal charge against Tim will spin off a larger legal investigation aimed at Dalton McGuinty, and his team of ((allegedly) guilty cohorts, that will result in a similar legal consequences. Maybe only  then will my festering sore heal over and I may begin feel some peace of mind when justice has been done. 

A conviction of Mr. McGuinty along with serious jail time, would  also send a message to all politicians everywhere that their actions and misdeeds will be legally held to the same standards and consequences as private citizens like Bernie Madoff when it comes to abusing the trust of citizens on such a grand scale.  

May the face of Dalton McGuinty become forever associated with Bernie Madoff's - both in reminder that no one is above the law, regardless of the wealth and reputation that they command. 

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill

Let's privatize climate change funding

Reading "Let's talk about climate change" this morning ( April 11, 2014) in the LETTERS page of the National Post which reveals that 26 university professors were recently disappointed when their offer of research services to the NEB were rejected, I was pleased by the NEB's decision to protect our tax dollars. 

Let's face it, the good professors were applying for paid employment which is funded by us. Their applications were self-serving and based on their professional support of the reports published by the IPPC alleging man's CO2 production as threatening future global Armageddon. 

I, like many other taxpayers, view the IPPC as a political organization with a predominantly political agenda rather than a credible scientific organization that presents un-spun, unvarnished scientific facts concerning man's role in climate change. For this reason, as a taxpayer, I am pleased that the NEB has denied  employment to these professors on my nickel. 

However, I am led to believe that that are still many people who believe the IPPC reports which means that there is likely a paying market  for research services in this domain.  I am proposing, therefore,  that these 26 professors take the entrepreneurial route and  form a private-sector (aka for-profit, or not-for-profit)  research consortium which will raise its funding from donations (subscriptions) from true IPPC believers. 

After all, if churches can thrive on donations from religious believers, why can this not also be true for this proposed consortium - one that will exist to serve the interests of the communities of IPPC true believers? 

This "put your money where your mouth is" proposal will get non-believers off the tax hook and enable true believers to tithe to their hearts content. Win-win!

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill, ON

A new Canadian Union

Mr. Solomon's article today in the FP Comment Section of the National Post entitled "Canada needs Quebec", rather than building sound arguments to keep Quebec within the Canadian federation, actually builds a stronger argument for ALL provinces to go their separate ways. If it takes ongoing federal bribes, as Mr. Solomon has correctly explained,   to hold this country together, then a Canadian Union (a CU like the  EU) make up of +/- 10 distinct sovereign "nations" may be a  better "Canadian" concept than the status quo.                       

In fact, in such an exercise of rethinking Canada, it is likely that the current 10 provincial boundaries and 2 territories would be re-shaped into 5 or less  geographically defined entities. This would naturally occur when the citizens within each region were asked to assess and re-imagine their geographic, economic and cultural assets as well as their potential political and trading advantages as new sovereign quasi-national entities - an exercise that is exactly the same as  Quebec separatists have done for themselves.  The federal government would be disbanded with the exception of the  Bank of Canada (renamed the Canadian Union Central Bank- CUCB ) and "national defense" renamed as the Canadian Union Defense Coalition (CUDC). 

Federal taxation would also disappear and each CU participant "sovereign" nation would collect its own taxes and "tithe" a fixed  amount per citizen (say $100 annually)  to the CUCB and CUDC to be managed by one elected governors per CU nation that would collectively function as a CU Board of Governors (CUBG).    Each citizen of all CU nations would pay a levy to eliminate the current federal debt which would never again be allowed to grow because the CUBG would have  no powers to borrow on behalf of the CU nations.                                                                                                       

If the European Union is a concept that is good enough for 18 European countries, it should clearly be an acceptable model here.  Our advantage is that we have the unique opportunity to reshape our "sovereign" boundaries in a way that should result in new quasi-national entities 

that would enjoy better economic balance than exists in Europe where the disparity between their nations with respect to language,  industrial/economic base and culture is much more challenging to reconcile than within Canada.                                                                                                                                                       

If we are going to consider a Quebec referendum, then - I say -  let's consider a totally new concept of Canada along these lines - a new Canadian Union. 

Education reform does not need more government spending

Let's face it. We all live in a world of specialization that is supported by amazing technologies, sophisticated processes, and a constant stream of human innovation. All this spells one undeniable fact - our lives are constantly surrounded and enveloped by change, and not to embrace and prepare for this change is to face potential obsolescence and failure.

At the level of the individual, life-long learning is the only way to adapt to change and to thrive. The challenge to our higher educators in the past was to teach facts. Today, it is to instill the desire, ability and consistent learning habit as a key survival skill in every student.

Human beings are NOT born equal. Innate intelligence, aptitudes, physical capacities, appearance and birth circumstances are as unique as each person's fingerprints. After nearly 33 years of employment as a professional recruiter in the staffing industry, I have come to deeply appreciate this reality.  I have played the role of "matchmaker" thousands of times between employers who require individuals with rare abilities and those rare citizens who qualified to meet the always strict hiring criteria.  In 100% of the successful matches, the candidates' Education credentials were of minor consideration compared to their progressive work history, experiences gained, skills mastered and knowledge acquired -  in combination with the right mix of interpersonal, analytical and communication skills that successful performance on the job demanded. 

Human beings are shaped by their life choices and ensuing life experiences just as powerfully as by the unanticipated life circumstances that each one of us encounters. Our elders often profess the importance of a good education as an essential ingredient to attaining a rich and fulfilling life - and they are right to do so. In the long run, however, personal and career choices ultimately play the most significant roles in shaping our individual destinies.  Free market mechanisms have always been more effective at honing in on real market needs than top-down central planning as both Russia and China have realized in their evolving shift to more capitalist market practices.

The Ontario Libertarian Party believes that the top-down, centrally-planned, monopoly-delivered and taxation- funded model of education is NOT the best service delivery model when the enormously diverse hiring needs of employers  and the unique potential of each citizen are taken into consideration.  The private sector, on the other hand, provides numerous examples of businesses that have succeeded in profitably serving large and small markets for a enormous range of goods and services. Furthermore, whenever a business model is found to be unsuccessful in securing a market for its products, entrepreneurs are quick to make adjustments or else face extinction. How quickly would a government operation make these adjustments under similar circumstances?

A vote for the Ontario Libertarian Party is a vote for a bottom-up,  free market approach to education services delivery.  The mutual interests of future employers, parents and students will be aligned much more effectively by competitive, free market mechanisms than by the education and job market distortions that are the persistent by-product of the public Education monopoly that we have today.

Gene Balfour

Ontario Libertarian Party candidate, Thornhill riding

To all separatists - put our money where your mouth is !

Proposal:  A new, distinctly Quebec,  Transfer Payments Plan for the "distinct society" advocates within Quebec. 

Methodology:  Run parallel referenda in Quebec and the ROC to determine the level of future transfer payments made to Quebec. 

     For example, if 100% of Quebec citizens vote in favor of Quebec sovereignty, then transfer payments fall by 100%. If 30% vote sovereignty, then payments fall by the same 30% from current levels. 

     The ROC referendum will determine the percentage of non-Quebecers who no longer wish to support those Quebec citizens who do not value their Canadian citizenship sufficiently to stay within the Canadian "family". The ROC vote will determine the additional percentage by which ROC transfer payments will be reduced to Quebec. These tax savings will be awarded to ROC taxpayers who have funded the premium payments paid to Quebec separatists over many decades as our bribe to keep them in Canada. 

Reverse Payments 

      Oh, by the way, if the sum of the Quebec and ROC referenda is below zero, minus 10% for example, then Quebec will need to pay to the ROC an amount equal to 10% of current transfer payment levels for tolerating the inconveniences and extra costs that Quebec imposes on the ROC - such as official bilingualism mandated in all government documents across English-speaking Canada.

Let’s talk turkey about legalizing marijuana

There are trade-offs in most decisions in life, but some tradeoffs are “padded ” when governments make decisions on our behalf.  Legalizing marijuana is a case in point and has much in common with other risky behaviours.

Smoking marijuana has risks to life and limb, as does cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol excessively. Yet, our provincial government provides to those who indulge in these risky behaviors  “free” health care safety nets. What’s worse is that these risky behaviours also serve as a source of government funding in the form of “sin taxes”. They also spawn a hearty brood of new regulations that serve as cheap chum for nourishing the growth of new and larger regulations-enforcing bureaucracies.

Who wins?  The politicians and bureaucrats benefit directly by wining elections and building government careers on failed promises to “win the war on drugs”.

Who loses? The taxpayers ( is anyone surprised?) in two ways: first, by paying higher taxes and second; by enduring longer waiting lines for health care services.

Why do we continue to reward citizens for their risky choices when those who avoid such risks must shoulder the same, or greater, loads? Is it not time for tough love – to tell those who are tested with nicotine and THC in their tissues that they will forfeit 50% of their OHIP coverage for incurring such risks at public expense?   Is this the only way that our citizens will ever come to acknowledge and take responsibility for their unhealthy lifestyle choices - like marijuana smoking - which carry consequences for not just themselves but for every innocent citizen?

The truth about careers and education.

As proof of my bona fides to address this topic, please allow me to state for the record that I have been in the staffing industry since 1981 and the Information Technology industry since 1977. During this period, I have observed first hand how jobs have become increasingly specialized.  There are two very obvious factors that have been responsible for this ongoing trend:

•  As computer and communications technologies have advanced in speed, capacity and power, they have been applied to every facet of our lives and every domain of knowledge known to man. The sheer volume and usefulness of the information that has been unleashed by these technological advances have generated the need and accelerated the emergence of many new professions and job types – often replacing older, outmoded ones in the process.
•  The human brain has a relatively limited and fixed capacity for absorbing, managing and applying information. As a result, these limitations have necessitated that the primary focus of most jobs has been to become densely specialized and increasingly granular when considered within the contexts of the overall operational and information management processes that are employed by all modern businesses to achieve their targeted objectives.   It is not uncommon, therefore, to find organizations that are staffed by many professionals possessing a wide range of needed, specialized expertise. When combined within the larger team context, these professionals and highly trained front line workers collectively possess all the skills, knowledge and abilities to tackle and succeed in addressing complex challenges and/or delivery mandates successfully.

Changing the topic to the value of academic Education in the workplace, I contend that governments of all stripes generally place a great deal of emphasis on academic learning and state-granted degrees/ diplomas as a means of stimulating job growth – in particular, for high paying jobs.  In my view, this targeted academic Education emphasis is both short-sighted and naiive.

After spending nearly all of my professional working career as a “head hunter” who earns  a “finders fee” when successful in assisting a client employer to find and hire persons with rare qualifications, I know the truth about the value of academic Education in the workplace. I can summarize this truth as follows – first  for entry level positions and then for subsequent career advancement.

Entry level positions (generally applies to new graduates or job seekers competing for their first job).

• Some professions require highly specialized training and knowledge - such as a Pharmacist, Accountant, plumber, electrician, etc. For these professions, there is no substitute for having the right academic credentials to enter these professions as determined by the governing bodies who are part of a specific level of government or who are non-government bodies that  have been granted this legislated authority. Without the prescribed credentials, the barriers to entry in these types of regulated employment are insurmountable.
• Other professions (“blue collar” or “white collar”) also require specific academic credentials but for a different, less restrictive purpose – as proof of one’s ability to learn.  These often take the form of degrees, diplomas or certificates.  Sales Professionals in the IT industry, for example,  may be better able to sell products or solutions to customers if they are able to absorb and communicate the features and benefits of a sophisticated product line. Someone who has earned a subject-related university degree or college diploma will give potential employers greater assurance that the potential employee possesses the necessary learning capacity for this line of work.

Career advancement (generally applies to workers who have progressed beyond the “entry level “ stage of employment successfully and possesses the work history and  references and to prove it.  

• Acquiring a “track record of achievements” becomes the most significant factor in achieving career advancement in enterprises that reward staff on merit rather than seniority. In the private, ‘for profit’ business sector,  employee achievements must relate to specific contributions that an employee has effected towards helping the employer to attain specific business goals such as identifying opportunities for increases in workplace efficiency & cost savings or,  attaining a new major customer for the company.   In contrast, public sector enterprises, instead of seeking profits, are focused on maintaining or improving “public perception”. Their leaders hope that this focus will protect or improve the reputations of politicians and their parties. Consequently, individual employee achievements are hard to identify or measure within public service workplaces. This explains the focus on seniority for career advancement over achievements.
• Professional jealousy is common in performance-oriented, merit-based work places because promotions are often earned on the basis of many factors that can sometimes appear arbitrary or subjective. To be passed over for promotion is sometimes a subtle (or not so subtle as the case may be) sign that one’s career prospects may be brighter in  another organization  OR that one may best try to reflect on the reasons (possibly legitimate) that he/she may not be ready for the next level of responsibility, and then work constructively to enhance one’s preparedness. In a merit-based work culture, these options can bring out the best in people who can actually achieve results from their efforts to improve performance. The seniority system lacks the advancement incentives to encourage increases in work performance.

 Recommendations

All levels of government must focus their efforts to reduce all the various forms of labour legislation that continues to destroy the prospects of healthy careers for our citizens. Specific recommendations follow:

• Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws.  This will help foster workplace conditions where entry level workers can attain the first rung on a long term career ladder and enable these workers to acquire that track record that will enable them to advance to higher levels of responsibility, performance and  merit compensation.
• Reduce or eliminate Payroll Taxes. Employers will be more inclined to hire experienced workers on salary and provide the career advancement and merit incentives for each one to be the best that they can be in their chosen professions.
• Dramatically reduce Income Taxes. If  private companies can reward performance, shouldn’t the government do the same by allowing steadily rising success to be met with progressively lower income taxes? What better way for a government to  provide greater incentives for our citizens to excel and simultaneously curing our laggard provincial productivity record.   
• Shrink the government work force and simultaneously dismantle the gargantuan scaffolding of government legislation that prevents Ontario’s Citizen Entrepreneurs from competing on an equal footing with existing government services in all domains of government operation. These steps will open up huge work opportunities and create the kind of merit-based employment opportunities that will generate a much more innovative, productive and prosperous workforce in Ontario. It is the only way that Ontario will every regain its once proud reputation as Canada’s engine of wealth generation and shuck the embarrassing current position of needing a handout from other more prosperous provinces within Canada’s federation.   
• Last, but not least, eliminate all existing legislation that grant labour union leaders  the power to enslave (versus the right to work) workers and impose their exorbitant ATM (Anti-labour Taxation Mandate) fees (aka union dues). This will remove the “Us vs Them” gang mentality that divides business owners and organized labour.  All too often, these perennial adversaries spend enormous amounts of unproductive time, legal expenses and foot-dragging tactics that ultimately work at cross-purposes to one another . Its time to “play nice” in the work sand boxes of Ontario and share a common focus of winning increasing opportunities to expand prosperity for everyone rather than fighting over scraps like mongrels in the ally.

In summary, any political leader that promotes public Education institutions and their delivery programs while ignoring the most valuable strategies for greater personal and  professional  prosperity attainment  - career advancement – are failing to serve the public adequately.   Economic prosperity in Ontario is too important to be left in the hands of such short-sighted and naiive political hacks.

The truth about political job creation promises.

I hate to "burst the bubble" of the Blue, Orange, Red and Green parties, but all citizens need to understand what governments CAN and CANNOT DO when it comes to job creation.  

1. Governments DO NOT create jobs. Jobs are only created when a legitimate demand exists for them AND when the economic and regulatory conditions exist to make them viable.
2. Governments can create demand by spending taxpayer dollars on publicly-funded projects such as subway building, but there is nothing written in stone that says infrastructure projects must be funded publicly.
3. Governments can also create demand by spending taxpayer dollars on politically –motivated initiatives that could not otherwise be justified in economic terms. Many of these jobs fit the category of “make work jobs”  which provide little of no benefits to taxpayers but exist in the thousands as a way to pad the “fiefdoms” of senior public administrators who use this ‘padding” to leverage ever-increasing budgetary responsibility each year. 

Let’s dissect the job creation plans of politicians such as Cindy Hackleberg of the NDP.  Cindy claims to have a job creation plan which involves subsidizing businesses who hire new staff.

Consider the mechanics of this promise carefully. For example:

• Where is the money going to come from in order for the NDP to make these job subsidy “investments” ( This is the popular term uses by the Social Engineering type of politician found in all of the major parties) . There are only 3 possible money sources – taxes, debt-financing (aka deferred taxation + interest), and cost-cutting in other public spending areas (aka  these are still tax dollars but shuffled from one spending target to another).
• Why is it necessary for an NDP government to collect and shuffle your tax dollars in order to make these job subsidy “investments”?  One obvious motive is to create more work for their unionized public administration  work forces because, with increased workload, they can justify hiring more public administration “tax dollar shufflers”  who  will generate more Union Taxes (aka “union dues”) for the NDP’s heavily favoured political supporters  - union leaders.

Now consider the Libertarian plan for jobs.

• Drastically reduce or eliminate the existing regulations that support government services monopolies and their monopoly labour hegemonies. This will remove the barriers to entry that all Citizen Entrepreneurs currently face who wish to offer innovative, competitive and cost-effective service alternatives in the service domains currently monopolized by governments at every level.
• Libertarians are not central planners and, as such, do not recognize the public administration “tax dollar shufflers” job category as one that provides value to taxpayers.  In stead, we believe that the public administration “tax dollar shufflers” that will be needed in the government bureaucracies of the Orange, Red and Green parties will enjoy much more rewarding and productive employment as employees of Citizen Entrepreneur enterprises or as their owners. After all, who best to employ in these enterprises than the same employees who know first hand about the mind-numbing, inefficient and politically manipulated jobs within public administration?

·      Money is very fluid - it will always find its own way to the most promising work-related investments without the unneeded cost and red tape overhead imposed by meddling public administrators whose role is to essentially control the flow of public money to politically–expedient recipients. Free market investments are much more pragmatic, purposeful and dynamic than any “investments” made by government, and the occur thousands of times every day within private enterprises without public fanfare such as Premier Wynne’s recent announcement of a $400 million subsidy to the horse-racing sector in the Niagara region.

There is only one real choice in this election. Vote for yourself and the wisdom that you all possess to manage your own affairs without the cost or interference of a public babysitter provided by the Blue, Orange, Red or Green parties.

Vote Libertarian.