Category: Politics
Libertarian Candidate for Lakeland in the 2019 Federal Election
| 9 September 2019 | 16:19 | Politics | No comments

I still think it is important that people have the libertarian choice.  I also think it is highly unlikely that a majority of Canadians will ever choose a libertarian party to govern. I suspect that most people consider the small parties a lost cause. Was the Reform Party an exception?  Although they did elect a number of Members of Parliament, once they merged with the PCs, the reform principles were lost in the political game of do whatever it takes to get elected.

I think we lost votes to the Peoples Party of Canada.  I don’t think the Peoples Party of Canada approach to freedom will be any more successful than the Libertarian Party of Canada.  A platform from a small party with some variation of tax and regulation is not different enough from the big parties to warrant consideration.

I would like the Libertarian Party of Canada to give people a clear, unambiguous choice.  Propose a constitution that simply gives people access to restitution for all kinds of assault and all kinds of theft with no place for privilege or political machinations. Period.

Governments Are Not Loving
| 8 June 2019 | 22:56 | Politics | No comments

That governments are not loving is not a condemnation of governments, it is just a statement of fact. It is not in the nature of governments to love. There are three levels of interaction or relationships in a society.

The lowest level is lawless, and selfish. People function on this level by stealing and assaulting others to get what they want. Most governments operate to some extent at this level where they tax away some amount of income earned in the private sector, and regulate what people can do to some degree of enslavement.

The second level is relationships of respect and consideration for others. This is where liberty comes in. People at this level recognize the property rights of others who are responsible and accountable for what they choose to do with themselves and their possessions. Government will operate on this level to a degree depending on the culture of liberty among the society at large. Governments will not impose liberty on their society. It is society that will impose their culture of liberty on their government.

The third level is relationships of love which can only be obtained on the basis of the second level of respect and consideration for others. In a loving relationships people want the best for others and actively promote and contribute to what is best for others. Sometimes people think they can love without being respectful and considerate, but this is not possible. They are involved in some kind of manipulation or coercion which is not loving. Love is given voluntarily; it cannot be legislated and is therefore not in the reach of government. There is no such thing as government charity. Governments that redistribute wealth are operating on the lowest level of interactions.

People as individuals can grow and develop through the three levels of relationships. The culture of the people in a given society will determine the relationship level of their government. The best form of government will simply codify the natural law of liberty. People in such a society will voluntarily interact on the basis of property right and have access to compensation for violations of property right. Unfortunately, our governments today reflect a weak culture of liberty.

Independent Candidate for Vermilion-Lloydminster-Wainwright
| 28 March 2019 | 18:14 | Politics | No comments

This is my platform:

  • I have no desire to dictate how other people’s income is used. Consequently, I would support any legislation that decreases government spending and decreases or eliminates taxes.  I would oppose any legislation that increases government spending or increases taxes.
  • I have no desire to dictate what other people choose to do with their lives.  Consequently, I would support any legislation that decreases or eliminates government regulation of individuals or businesses.  I support laws that prohibit any form of assault and any form of theft. I would oppose any expansion of government regulation and bureaucracy.
  • I have no desire to live by the support of taxpayers.  I would expect expenses directly related to being an member of the legislative assembly to be covered by my MLA salary. Any monies received over and above expenses would be put in trust for the purpose of promoting liberty. (I deem it unwise to return such monies to government where it will be misused.)
The False Paradigm of Government
| 21 March 2019 | 20:48 | Economics, Politics | No comments

There is a false paradigm of government where people accept the propaganda that governments run countries (or provinces or cities). Countries run because individuals and businesses engage in peaceful exchanges to produce goods and services and otherwise treat each other with respect and consideration. Peace and prosperity are directly related to how people treat each other. When people have respect for the person and other property of others, then everyone is at liberty to lead a peaceful, productive life.

What governments do run are bureaucracies which are burdens and obstacles to the peace and prosperity of society. The proper role of government is to give collective backing to the natural right that everyone has to protect their person and other property. In direct contradiction to that proper role, most of what governments do is take people’s property in taxes and interfere with people’s choices with regulations. When an individual takes someone else’s property or interferes with their choices, we call it a crime. When government does these same things, they call it legal as if their legislation can turn a crime into some kind of moral good.

Most political parties support some version of the scam that they can run things to our benefit. They have their various proposals about how they are going to do it differently with their set of taxes and regulations.

I will continue to promote liberty, but I despair of our society coming to the realization that their paradigm of government is false. The sad part of all this is that while many survive the burden of legal plunder, there are many who suffer in misery and heartache because of the burden of bloated government.

Liberty and Religion
| 10 December 2018 | 13:03 | Politics, Religion | No comments

It seems that the more I read, ponder, and interact with the liberty movement, the more I have become convinced that it takes a moral people, probably a religious people, and even a Christian people to establish and maintain a society with property right.  I am not suggesting that a Christian people is sufficient to establish liberty since there are many Christians who do not recognize property right.  I am suggesting that a Christian people who also recognize property right is necessary to establish and maintain liberty.  Why would this be?  Well …..

First of all, property right or freedom of choice is a basic principle of Christianity.  A person cannot be forced to love God or love their neighbour.  Loving a neighbour includes respecting their property right.  If a christian does not recognize property right, they are a prime candidate for conversion to the liberty movement since property right is part of what they profess to believe.

It appears from history that property right is at least to a large extent associated with Judaeo-Christian culture.  In the last few hundred years, property right has been recognized and implemented in the Judaeo-Christian cultures of Europe and North America.

People with moral values will support a principle that they understand to be right regardless of the inconvenience or enticement to do otherwise.

So what if you do not believe in morality or religion or specifically the Christian religion.  I would suggest that it is to your advantage to welcome people who have moral or religious values to the liberty movement.

For my part, I am quite willing to join with those who share my political views of liberty regardless of their non-political views.


Libertarianism is not Utopian
| 14 July 2018 | 19:52 | Politics, Religion | No comments

The following link is to an article that gives a good explanation of why libertarianism is ethical, practical, realistic, logical, and reasonable.  It is very worthwhile to read.  I also think it explains why libertarianism is the political part of the Judea-Christian ethic.

A Strategy to attain a Government for a Free Society
| 10 May 2018 | 17:14 | Politics | No comments

Law establishes Freedom

A free society is based on law which establishes that a person can seek compensation for all types of assault and all types of theft. All tax and regulatory legislation contradicts law and decreases freedom.

An Anti-political Party Platform

An anti-political party (a libertarian party) would have as its platform the repeal of all tax and regulation legislation. The consequence of this would lead to Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) being voluntary positions, privatization of all government services, and no government bureaucracy.


Despite what a dictionary definition of politics might be, politics as practiced means candidates for the legislative assembly “buying” votes by promising government services and special privileges for certain groups. Politics also means passing regulatory legislation which blocks competition for large businesses. All political parties have their customized variation of vote “buying” consisting of basic government services, private, labour, and corporate welfare, plus some combination of funding and regulations for special interest groups.

The Anti-political Vote

Convincing voters who are currently voting for a political party to switch to an anti-political party is unlikely. What about eligible voters who don’t vote? Why don’t they vote? My guess is that some are too lazy or don’t care. Is it possible that some are disgusted with politics or see no way that their vote can counter the corruption in politics? The proposal here is that half the non voting eligible voters could be persuaded to vote for an anti-political party.

The Numbers

How could an anti-political party get elected? Let’s look at the numbers. What follows is a look at the last five elections using percent of vote figures for each party. It is assumed that half of the non voting eligible voters were persuaded to vote for the anti-political party. Percent voter turnout is the actual figure. The percent of total eligible votes (everybody who could have voted) is shown for each party. Adjusted percent votes is what the voter turnout would have been with the added anti-political vote.






% of Eligible Vote

% of Eligible Vote

% of Eligible Vote

% of Eligible Vote

% of Eligible Vote

% Voter Turnout








































Adjusted % Votes






Under these assumptions, the anti-political party does quite well. Usually a party with 25% of the total possible votes would form the government. These percentages would not translate directly into elected MLAs because that happens at each constituency level, but it is still a good indication of the outcome of the election.

Politics versus Anti-politics

Libertarians are unlikely to win the political game. Libertarians don’t believe in politics; they can’t stomach it; their heart is not in it. A libertarian party is not likely to beat politicians at their own game. The best strategy for libertarians is to appeal to people who have a similar view of politics. This would mean running under the anti-political party platform.


This anti-political strategy is practical, plausible and the only realistic possibility for a libertarian party. Could it be over optimistic? Maybe, but the game of politics is downright depressing.

Taxing Businesses is Taxing the Rich?
| 15 September 2017 | 10:59 | Economics, Politics | No comments

Businesses exist because people have invested in productive assets like land, buildings, machines, and employees. These businesses provide goods and services that are voluntarily purchased or in other words things that people need or want. Taxes decrease the productivity of businesses which means less product, less employment, less income to buy other products. Taxes decrease the standard of living for everyone which is especially onerous for those on the lower end of the economic scale. So increase tax on businesses? Not a good idea.

Alberta Libertarian Party forum
| 3 September 2017 | 20:34 | Politics | No comments

People want to move forward with getting an Albertan libertarian party registered.  To that end we have set up a forum to discuss and plan the path forward.  If you want to be part of this effort, join us at:

Religion and Libertarianism
| 5 October 2016 | 19:26 | Politics, Religion | No comments

There is antagonism between some religious people and some libertarians due to generalizations.  The religious people of this mindset see libertarians as immoral or at least amoral, and disrespectful (libertines who have the attitude that I will do what I want and you can’t stop me). The generalizing libertarians see religious people as wanting for force everyone to live according to their standards. The short answer to this is to not get into the fallacy of generalization. For those who think their generalization is reality, let me try to give a different point of view.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy about how people can get along with each other; it is not a philosophy of life like a religion. In a libertarian society, if someone were to violate the property right of another (some kind of assault or theft), then they would be held accountable to compensate the victim as far as possible. Holding someone accountable for violating a property right is for the protection of property rights, not to make the criminal moral. Libertarianism is amoral, but there is more to life than politics, so libertarians can have a life style that is moral and even religious. Also note that libertarianism requires that people have respect and consideration for the person and possessions of others.  People cannot just do whatever they want without considering the possible violation of someone’s property right. The politics of a peaceful and prosperous society requires no more and no less than law that protects property right.

In speaking to my fellow libertarians, I would note that the major religions of the world all have some form of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Most religious people try to abide by the golden rule in their personal interactions with others.  Granted, many of these same people do not understand that supporting government taxation and regulation is contrary to the golden rule, but then you could say the same for non-religious people too. Most religious people are committed to their values. Once they see the value of the libertarian position, they will be strong supporters. Something that libertarians do that might cause religious people to shy away, is to express support for certain special interest groups. This can give the impression that support of these special interests is the libertarian cause. Although this is not true, it can still be the perception that turns people away. It is better to promote the whole reality that the libertarian cause is beneficial for everyone.

For the religious side, I can only speak from a Christian perspective. Taking other people’s property (stealing, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, taxation, etc.) is immoral, is not Christian, and is not libertarian.  There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus nor in His treatment of other people that would justify trying to force Christianity on anyone which force is in itself immoral.  Faith in Jesus Christ, following His teachings, and choosing moral behaviour must come from within as a person’s own choice to be valid.  It is immoral to try to force someone to be moral.  So from a Christian perspective, taxes and regulation are immoral and libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is compatible with Christianity.

Now my particular Christian view is that of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And let me say to my fellow Latter-Day Saints that libertarianism is nothing more nor less than the principle of agency which we consider fundamental to the gospel of Christ. Agency means that everyone has the privilege and responsibility to choose for themselves what they will believe and how they will live. The section of Doctrine and Covenants on government, 134, verse 2 states: “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”  This is as good a succinct description of libertarianism as you will find anywhere.  The righteous Nephite kings and judges in the Book of Mormon did not tax their people nor force any beliefs on them.  Mosiah 2:14 “And even I (King Benjamin), myself, have laboured with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, ….”  Alma 1:17 “…..; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.”  Tax and regulate government goes against everything that Latter-Day Saints are taught about good government.  Libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is consistent with the principle of agency.

I believe libertarian groups can attract support from religious people by presenting their group in a professional manner.  Besides being courteous and considerate, this would mean avoiding the marketing error of appearing to cater to special interest groups.  I encourage religious people to look past the amorality of libertarianism to the fact that it is the only moral political choice.  Libertarians will protect religious liberty along with every other liberty.  Libertarianism will help those on the low end of the economic scale as opposed to the failed do-gooder policies of other political parties.   The libertarian philosophy is a subset of religious philosophy so the basic political philosophy is the same.  Libertarians and religious people should expect to share the same political views.