Athletes Shrugged

The state-run broadcaster reported today some incredible news.  In a protest against government interference in their right to freely train and compete, the best winter sports athletes in the world discreetly gathered in British Columbia to hold a competition based on the principles of individual rights.   Athletes called the event the first free competition in over a hundred years.

Downhill ski racer Francisco d’Anconia was interviewed just after he completed the fastest run of the day to take the gold medal.  “I grew tired of participating in events where the prime directive was ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’ and I was forced to give up my spot on the podium to athletes of much lesser ability, poor conditioning and no dedication” said d’Anconia.  “This is the first event in living memory where I was allowed to compete without state officials handicapping my performance so others could have a turn winning.  Today, the outcome was decided objectively by individual ability alone.” 

“It’s not fair!”complained would-be downhill skier James Taggart, who did not participate in the event, to the competition board.  “Just because Francisco has such enormous talent does not give him the right to take first place.  I’m going to take this case to the equalization of athletic rights tribunal and make them take away his medal.  Just imagine if success was only based on individual ability, training and hard work- why it would leave no chance for the rest of us who want to win too” he sneered.

Over in the hockey arena the captain of the team seemingly destined for gold, John Galt, was heard to say “the great athletes of the world are tired of living under the punishing rules set by state bureaucrats who are themselves incapable achieving what these athletes can do.  We realized that principles we had followed all our lives were contrary to man’s nature and have shrugged off the burden of carrying our fellow men on our backs.  We will no longer train with such intensity and dedication for the purpose of placing the less competent on the podium.  We will allow success and failure to be determined by a free market for athletic skill.”

Multiple medal-winner in long track speed skating, former American Dagny Taggart, supported Galt’s position.  “Under a socialized athletic education and health care program I was unable to work with the instructors I wished to hire or find the best trainers and therapists.  I was paying such high taxes for the state-run monopolies I could not afford to also pay for a school of my choice or obtain the fast, affordable and flexible access to health care available in free countries, so my training suffered.  Since I moved to a country where teachers can work as they choose, competing for the best students, and medical professionals are able to choose their own business models, my performance has improved quickly.  Before, I was forced into public training programs where equal opportunity was the rule and when I was injured I had to wait in line to see doctors and therapists who were forced to provide ‘equal’ treatment for people who simply did not take care of themselves.

The outspoken cross-country skier Hank Reardon, who was once taken to court for daring to claim he had a right to earn and keep any medals he won in open competition, declared he wanted to see an end to the massive subsidy programs for sports teams.  “The notion that any particular team is too big to fail is ludicrous!” said Reardon.  If a hockey team has signed contracts giving away the future of the business to its players and the fans are unwilling to buy enough tickets at the prices required to keep the team solvent, then the team must be allowed to close.  If willing new owners can revive the business and operate it without losing money they are free to do so, but this idea of taking money by force from the remaining successful teams that made rational choices and paying those running an irrational business model is sheer lunacy and will only lead to greater problems down the road” said Reardon.  “I trust individuals to choose the ticket prices they are willing to pay and support the team of their own liking.  They have the right to choose their path in life.  Government interference only distorts the entire sports industry!”

Sports Directorate Minister Wesley Mouch criticized d’Anconia, Taggart, Galt, Reardon and the rest of the competitors at this ‘unsanctioned’ event.  “These people have no right to hold their own events and allow a free market for sports ability to determine their winners” he complained.  “They are ignoring the collective principles that hold our society together.  This disproven theory that individual freedom is a good thing will surely fail soon.  People can’t be just allowed to succeed or fail based on arbitrary measures such as ability or intelligence – it’s not sustainable.  Why, these so-called athletes operate as if everyone else did not have the same right to win if they want to.  Everyone knows that NEED is the highest moral standard and that if someone needs to win a gold medal and others must be held back to enable this, then that is the right thing.”

When asked about the comments by Mr. Mouch, John Galt declared “the greatest athletes in the world gathered here have taken a vow.  They have each said ‘I swear by my life and my love of it, never again to sacrifice my training and competitive spirit for the sake of another, and never to allow another to sacrifice his abilities for me.’  In order to live, man must be free to think, act on his ideas and hold onto the product of his efforts.  These are the principles of this event, which we are calling the Reality Games.

Politicized science in Orleans

In an attempt to create fear of the future among adult citizens, Ottawa-Orleans MPP Phil McNeely continues to spread his grossly mistaken version of climate change.  McNeely was quoted in the Star, saying “I have a couple of grandkids and don’t see much of a future for them.” He sponsored a climate change forum for Orleans high school students where he has been trying to create fear in our children and was quoted “The kids are going to suffer in 2030, 2040 and 2050.”  Meanwhile, the Ontario government under the control of his party has implemented a plan to take hard-earned money from innocent citizens, harming the weakest the most, and give it to people willing to implement the politically distorted version of electricity generation, people who will be generally well-off already.  This short paragraph illustrates the damage done by political interference in science, education and the economy.

To gain a basic understanding of the science of climate change McNeely has only to attend a class or two at Ottawa University.  There, students learn of recent research from the scientific disciplines of geology, physics, climatology and mathematics that Earth’s temperature changes with several natural cycles (examples: ocean currents, planetary rotation, solar, galactic) over all time scales.  They will learn how there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years and how temperature changes precede CO2 changes by an average of 800 years over the last few hundred thousand years.  The world’s top satellite data expert, Roy Spencer’s research shows that cause and effect have been reversed in the minds of most people and that satellite data proves man-made CO2 does not have any dramatic effect on global temperature.  Students may also learn about very recent work using satellite data by researcher Ferenc Miskolczi who identified the equilibrium equation for Earth's gain and loss of heat.  Miskolczi's work shows that when the carbon dioxide level rises then water vapour concentration falls exactly enough so the Earth maintains its energy balance. Thus, even large changes in carbon dioxide will have no effect on the global temperature.

Climate science has been thoroughly taken over by people who feed off money taken from citizens by government.  Some of these people desire to control the lives of others, and often try to create large-scale fear in the public to get people to give in to the control.  Fear of planetary disaster through man-made warming is the clearest example. Socialists who think they know better than you implement thousands of policies that gradually erode your freedoms.  The second group is scientists and their staff who want to work and support their families but rely on government funding instead of a free market to do their research.  Once the power-seekers have taken control of taxpayer funded science, they direct funding to those who will reinforce their point of view and block contrary finding and a dogmatic bureaucracy becomes entrenched.

When power-seekers can’t get adults to react enough to suit their liking, they go after the children.  Since government has gradually assumed control over most of the nation’s education, it is quite easy to change the curriculum to introduce a particular political agenda.  By assembling students and placing a politician (himself) who knows almost nothing of the science in a position of authority, MPP McNeely takes the final step in replacing science with political dogma – a fear-induced frenzy in our children about a non-existent threat.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, government force is implemented in the economy.  Just look in your newspaper for ads about a new Ontario government program that will give money to people who install solar electric panels at ten to twenty times the going rate for electricity while making everyone else pay for it.  Obviously, if solar power was economic then people would use it of their own free will with no government force needed.  Since it is non-economic, the price difference is pure economic waste – electricity that could be produced at far lower cost but is not.  Those most harmed are the poor, for whom electricity is an essential and significant part of their budget.  Of course, since power is used to produce everything, the price of everything will rise.  This is most clear in developing countries, where environmentalists using political force have blocked the construction of hydro and coal powered electrical generation, leading to the continuation of hunger, sickness and death for millions of human beings.  People who have freely chosen against solar power are being forced to use and pay for it by the very people they once to elect to protect their freedom to choose – a clear perversion of the purpose of government.

What is needed to eliminate the problem of the politicization of science, education and the economy is not simply a replacement government with slightly different ideas about how to control your life, but a government willing to return to its moral and proper role: the protector of individual rights through objective law, the police, the courts and the military.  What we need is a change from various collectivist philosophies to one based on individual freedom.

Fatally conceited

When the Ontario government delivered its budget it plans deficits for the foreseeable future (at least eight years) and thus offers not even a glimmer of hope.  Eight years is two full election cycles and is about the same length as the average economic cycle.  We will likely have another recession by the time Ontario proposes to balance its budget, and then the government will say they need to run deficits again to “stimulate” whatever parts of the economy they have left standing.  What exactly is wrong with our governments?

The problem is one of philosophy, two branches of which are politics and economics.  Philosophy asks the biggest questions about topics like the nature of existence and what is right for man’s life.  Politics narrows this down to ask “what is the right way to govern a society?”  Economics asks “what is the right way to exchange values between people?”  The massive problems we face in these areas are because all our politicians have the wrong answers to these questions and thus demonstrate an improper philosophy.

I have only heard a few elected politicians who do not espouse the fatally conceited view that things can be made better in society if only government can force “correct” political and economic views on enough citizens.  They don’t recognize their ideology as such, but their words and actions prove it is so.  These power-hungry people honestly believe they know better than you do how you should run your life and so proceed to invent hundreds of thousands of rules to control your behavior.  The idea that people left to make their own decisions are capable of cooperation to achieve their goals in life is inconceivable to them. They see the complex interactions of millions of free people as chaotic and lacking structure, so they proceed to force their own vision of structure on the people.  Thus we have extreme examples such as near-monopolies in much of the health care and education sectors that eliminate many of the rights of patients, doctors, students and teachers alike.  Even a very traditional business such as dairy farming is cornered by myriad rules and regulations.

Running a country and an economy from the top down requires omniscience.  How can a politician know how to instruct a bureaucrat to direct a manufacturer to make a certain number of a particular type of widgets or to make them more efficiently or change their features?  And when the number of widgets change and the population adapts their preferences slightly, how does the central planner know how to change the production of all other goods and services?  Since there is no way to do this, all centrally planned economies fail and their countries go bankrupt to the degree they engage in such ridiculous schemes.  The largest examples of central planning failures are Russia and China, with North Korea being the prime example these days.  Starvation, deprivation, degradation and misery are the norm, except of course for those few at the top who plunder the country and its people.

What is the right way to govern a society and exchange values among people?  Man’s mind it his means of survival and to properly use it he must be free to think, free to act and free to keep the product of his actions.  Therefore, in a free country the rights and freedoms of each individual are protected by objective laws enforced by government.  No one sacrifices his interests to others and neither does he ask others to sacrifice their interests for his sake.  Agreements such as employment, exchange of goods and services and all other sorts are all formed only through voluntary cooperation.  All wealth is obtained, retained and exchanged through freely chosen agreements.  This system of government based on the primacy of individual rights is known as capitalism.

Examples of the failures of central planning abound in our lives.  The Ontario government feeds growing legions of more dissatisfied and disabled civil servants high wages on the back of the part of the economy that remains free.  Central plan after central plan to “save health care” (as if more government is the answer) swallows up ever-growing dollars yet the state-run industry remains in a condition of constant pain and strain; this with the baby boom not yet exerting more than a minor push on demand.  Centers of excellence exist despite government interference and not because of it.  The City of Ottawa is pathologically incapable of deciding if a fiberglass cow should be allowed on the roof of a cheese store, never mind running a massive bus transit business.  The current federal government purports to be in favor of individual rights and a free economy yet has expanded the maw of government more than anyone else.  All of them - elected parties, MP’s, MPP’s and city councilors - are philosophical collectivists who advocate passionately to preserve and grow their right to control your life.

There is no elected party whose platform is based on the philosophy of individual rights and consequent freedoms.  All of them are socialists because they believe in and act upon the principle of state control of the means of production and the removal of individual rights needed to implement such a regime.  It is very difficult to change such an entrenched philosophy since our teachers are unionized, work for the government and the principles of a free society are not taught in our schools.

By the end of 2011 we will have seen another civic and provincial election and federal election in one year.  Once again we have a chance to vote for representatives who can promise either to continue and increase government interference in our lives or to start the process of dismantling the apparatus of central controls.  What is needed is to introduce the principle of a free society into the political debate.  While it is but a distant hope, imagine if we saw even one city councilor elected on such a platform - perhaps the word could spread from there.

Force and power in our schools

The Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) entered into agreements under the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) renewable energy feed-in tariff program.  The program pays participants for electricity they provide to the power grid through means such as roof-mounted photovoltaic (PV) panels.  My cottage is on an island off the electrical grid and I have been a PV system owner and user since 1992, so I have a fair understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of solar electric panels.  I believe that as technology advances such panels will one day generate a significant percentage of the electricity used in Ontario.  However, that day is likely twenty years away and the OCDSB and OPA schemes are wrong in science, economics and principle.

The science of photovoltaics is advancing like most technologies do, in the shape of an S-curve (see the curve for broadband penetration below).  In the innovation phase the product is very expensive and few people use it.  If it achieves mass market viability and passes 10% adoption, there is a rapid growth phase where the costs decline rapidly and adoption by users rises rapidly.  In the maturity phase, most of those who will adopt have already done so and incremental improvements are the hallmark.  Photovoltaics are way below the 10% market penetration level because the technology is still primitive.  There is a great deal of research being done and some researchers hope to double the efficiency of panels in the next several years.  A true breakthrough would be a method of producing much more efficient panels from common, inexpensive materials.  Some envision a flexible roll of material as cheap as roof shingles that could cover the roof of every home.  Alas, we are still a long way from that, and according to the S-curve the cost of power from solar panels will reach par with conventional sources in about 2030.  From a scientific angle we have a long way to go and installing panels on schools teaches students that the current state of scientific fact is secondary to the wishes of social engineers.

Science leads me to economics: since the technology is still so primitive, conventional methods of producing electricity are far more economical than using PV panels.  Solar panels suffer from the major weaknesses of inefficiency (commercial panels have 10% to 20% energy conversion efficiency) and inconsistency (only produce when exposed to sunlight).  Under the OPA micro-fit program people who produce electricity from PV panels will be paid about 2,000% more than the normal electricity price.  If your usual electrical bill is about $150/mo and you had to pay the rate that PV users will be paid, your bill would be $3,000 per month!  To the government’s surprise, offering to pay people twenty times the going rate has motivated thousands to install panels on their roof.  The money used to pay the solar producers must first be taken from the general population, so the people who can see that solar power is economically irrational and have chosen not to use it are being forced to pay the people who see a way to take advantage of their fellow citizens using the power of the state.  This teaches students that government is a tool to be used against citizens for the benefit of those who can manipulate political power.

Both science and economics are a part of philosophy, our method of identifying reality and determining good from bad.  The decisions of the OPA and OCDSB are not only based on flawed science and irrational economics but depend on actions that violate the individual rights of citizens and so are wrong in principle.  The OPA itself was created because government dictated so, not because the market asked for it through the freely chosen demand of customers.  Of course, the same applies to the OCDSB monopoly.  The program to pay people irrational amounts of money for primitive technology could only be created by the use of government force against citizens.  With the freedom to choose, you would never start up such a business with your own money; or if you did it would quickly die from massive financial bleeding.  When the OCDSB states that their use of the OPA program will eventually generate over $1 million of revenue per year they are technically correct, but conveniently ignoring the fact that this money is taken from Ontarians helpless to choose if they wish to support the plan.  In other words, it is a fully-baked tax increase.  For a price 20 times lower the OCDSB can be supplied with the same energy.

Thus, our students see by example that it is right for one government monopoly (Ministry of Education) to adopt the non-scientific program of another government monopoly (OPA) to implement the irrational whims of those who hold political power (MPP’s) over the lives of citizens.  When children are taught that scientific principles are to be ignored when reality is inconvenient; taught that economic facts are to be overridden by political pressure groups; and taught that the rights of citizens to pursue their own goals and make their own decisions in life free of state interference are subjugated to any transient political wish, it is no wonder they often grow up with little knowledge of science, economics or philosophy.

I am not my brother's health care keeper

The sustainability of socialized health care in Ontario was in the news when the TD Bank released a study.  Every year government spending on health care increases more than revenues and this single social program now consumes 46% of Ontario’s budget.  Ontario is already planning to run a deficit for the next eight years – even as the health care crunch is just starting.  Imagine when the crunch is in full force!

Ontario has a baby boom generation that is much bigger than the older and younger generations.  The front edge of the baby boom has not even begun its period of heavy demand for health care.  The lead edge of the baby boom was born at the end of World War II and is now just over 60 years old.  Health care spending increases from only about $3,000 per year at age 60 to $15,000 per year (and growing) over the age of 80.  In the next 20 years the number of seniors over the age of 75 will double.  Do the math – the existing system cannot survive the coming demand and very large changes will have to come.  Without a change of philosophy either costs will skyrocket and cannibalize other programs or service quality will greatly deteriorate.

In the existing system of central control doctors and hospitals are paid a fixed amount per service provided.  Because patients are granted a “right to health care”, they can go to a doctor as frequently as they want and can consume unlimited amounts of money in the process.  If health care is a right, then who is to decide how much money should be spent saving a life – is $100,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 or more the right amount?  There is actually no limit.  In this system the last months of life consume vast amounts of money prolonging life by only short amounts of time.  The very old consume a large part of the limited funding that could otherwise be used to improve the lives of many more people, but because the system is socialized and their condition is life-threatening they can demand that such sums be spent.  This system creates a war between the sick and the healthy.  The sick people demand money for health care as a right that must be paid by others – the non-sick.  What a perverse morality is socialism! 

 

The TD authors point out that “paying for each service provided by the physician leaves little incentive to appropriately weigh the costs of procedures against their potential benefits. More­over, the physician has no incentive to consider how his or her actions in providing care for this patient will affect the care other patients receive and there are few mechanisms in place in order to effectively enable physicians to consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment decisions.”  They continue by recommending a

“diagnosis-related group-based payment system” wherein “hospitals are reimbursed for the episode of care with which the patient is admitted and with the rate based on the type of service performed and the estimated cost of treatment per diagnosis fixed in advance. Payment is tied to an evaluation of the appropriate cost of the service and payments are for full episodes of care and not individual services performed.”

Consider the implications of such a policy for the hospital. You arrive in the emergency with symptoms of a dangerous condition.  The hospital knows that if the condition is formally diagnosed then they will receive a fixed dollar payment based on average costs.  Initial tests are done but the doctor believes you would benefit from further testing, which is expensive.  He also knows that if he runs the test then the hospital will lose money on your treatment.  He requests permission of an administrator who decides the test may not be medically necessary and asserts that the doctor cannot be certain it will be helpful.  After all, lots of patients don’t have the test.  Besides, the supply of test equipment a lab time is limited and the administrator has a budget to keep.  If the hospital can spend less than average on you it makes a profit and looks good to the government regulators.

What about the implications for the doctor?  He knows there is more he can do to help you but he is restrained by the system from providing further help.  It is against the law for him to provide further services to you even if you wish to pay for his help.  The procedures he must follow are dictated by the policies of government regulators and hospital bureaucrats.  He is forced into a position that makes him choose between the evil of denying you further treatment or facing penalties by the administration.  His right to choose patients and treat them as he and the patient see fit has been removed.

What about you, the patient?  You are given the treatment based on partial information, never knowing that further tests could have helped, or even if you did know and want the tests you are not permitted to pay for them since your treatment is based on the principle of “universal access” and you have no right to choose your own tests or treatments unless the hospital administrator allows them.  In the name of universal access most of your rights have been forcefully removed.

If the current system of paying doctors by the treatment is severely broken and a system of payment by diagnosis will create perverse effects, then what are we left with?  The rarely discussed alternative is to implement truly free health care.  No, not the kind you don’t have to pay for, but one where all use of government force against patients, doctors and hospitals is removed.  Call it a liberated health care, just like prisoners of socialism become liberated when their country is freed or they escape to a more free country.  In a free country each individual is responsible for his own life and all the decisions he makes.  Every doctor is free to study as he wishes, build whatever practice he wishes, see the patients he wishes and charge any price he wishes.  Every hospital is free to stay small or become as large as its owners wish, build any facilities they wish, specialize in any area they wish, accept all the patients they wish and charge any price they wish.  And they all compete with each other to do the best job at the lowest price – that is the only way any business can survive more than a short time.

A free market is how things work in areas like dental medicine, chiropractic medicine, physical therapy, laser eye surgery and the few other parts of health care that remain relatively free from government control.  What has happened in these areas of health care?  Innovation is the rule not the exception.  Technology improves at a rapid pace and is quickly implemented or the practitioner loses patients or money.  Treatments become more effective and usually at a lower cost.  A shortage of professionals is almost unheard of and gaps are quickly filled by professionals who identify the opportunity.  New offices spring up wherever neighborhoods are built.  Patients are allowed to choose any professional they want and negotiate a mutually satisfactory deal.  No one has the right to force patients to accept only the government approved treatments or to force doctors to accept patients they do not wish to work with.  Professionals who are highly productive are rewarded financially to the exact degree their patients are satisfied. 

Individuals could choose to save for their future health care costs or more likely buy insurance, which would be available from any company wanting to be in the business and able to sustain its business model for the long term through satisfying its customers’ needs and wants.  If they choose not to do so, individuals must face the consequences of their choice: they cannot afford care or they must depend on the charity of others.  That is a system of true justice because it corresponds with the facts of reality and not the imagined “rights/whims” of people who would take health care from others by force.

Politics and Potash

There was been a hue and cry over a recent bid by Australian-based company, BHP Billiton, for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.  Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, Ottawa investment guru and CFRA radio personality John Budden and National Post columnist Diane Francis have typified this and said the Government of Canada should step in and prevent foreign companies from buying a majority share in certain Canadian companies they refer to as assets of “strategic national interest”.  While this is all too typical thinking, it is in fact a violation of the rights of all Canadians – those who own Potash shares and those who do not – and of non-Canadians who would like to invest in Potash shares.

People who push for interference in the sale of Potash shares are asking for government to use force against its citizens who own Potash shares by forbidding them to sell to the buyer of their choice.  In a free market, transactions only take place with the mutually beneficial agreement of both the buyer and seller.  Unless the price is high enough for you as a seller to judge you are getting full value, you do not sell.  Unless it is low enough for you as a buyer to judge you are getting a bargain you do not buy.  When governments protect individual rights neither buyers nor sellers are unhappy with their transactions.  By forbidding the sale/purchase of certain shares the state is forcing some people to own them and forcing others not to own them.  The rights of both sellers and buyers are violated by such initiation of force.

Exactly what companies represent a “strategic national interest”?  Typically, companies that are resource-based such as the former cases of Inco and Stelco and the current Potash Corp. are identified.  The argument is that resources must be controlled only by Canadians so “we” can decide on employment policies, extraction methods, etc. because “we” care more about Canada than “they” do.  The belief is that “we” protect our access to these resources by having a controlling interest in the company.  Such arguments are invalidated by at least three important reasons.

First, we must identify who is meant by “we” and “national”.  The unstated assumption is that these words refer to Canadians, but then that should mean all Canadians, not just those in Saskatchewan, Ontario or anywhere else.  It should certainly not divide Canadians according to who does or does not own shares of Potash Corp.  Is it possible for any business decision to be agreed upon by all Canadians and would it matter?  Those advocating government interference in a transaction want the wishes of those who DO NOT own shares to override the free choices of those who DO own them, a perverse perspective.  If the share owners believe it is in their best interest to hold, they can certainly do so.  Regardless of whether they judge it is in their best interest to sell, they are the most affected “we” part of the “national” population.  If they sell shares no one else’s rights are violated.

If someone from Vermont or Illinois buys your shares, he can only do so if you agree with his price.  As a willing seller, by definition you have a better, more strategic interest in selling than holding. You may wish to buy a different company, spend it, donate it, deposit it in a bank or anything else with YOUR money. It is immoral for a government or anyone else to prevent you from selling YOUR shares. If I wish to buy your shares, I only need to put my money on the table and outbid others. Second, we must identify what is meant by the “interest” portion of “strategic national interest”.  The potential list is all Canadian-based companies.  Of course, there are many foreign companies more important to Canadians than many Canadian companies.  Microsoft has an important role in the functioning of most businesses and all governments in Canada.  Canadians certainly have a tremendous interest in seeing that Microsoft continues and improves its business, yet Canadians don’t control the company unless they own voting shares.  If you have an interest in selling your Potash shares because you have another use for your money, nothing prevents you from buying them back at a later date after you have made more money.  The unstated fact is that people who advocate for the “national interest” advocate for the violation of the rights of those actually involved in the decision, the buyers and sellers.  The market is a place where people like you use their own rational judgement for their own purposes. It should not be a place where interest groups tell you what you have to do or not do. Third, who is to decide which companies are “strategic” and will see the rights of shareholders violated and which companies will be free to determine their own path?  The government decided two bankrupt auto companies (GM and Chrysler) were of strategic interest in 2008 and took possession of the entire companies. What about companies that are not so poorly run as to go bankrupt but instead are highly successful such as Potash Corp. or Research in Motion in Canada or General Electric, Wal-Mart or Microsoft in the United States?  If such rules can be made about share ownership of terrible businesses can they also be made for excellent ones?  Since we have such rules already, the question is rhetorical.  What about companies that are privately owned instead of traded on a stock exchange?  Can they be controlled by government too?  Since there can be no objective definition of a thrice-flawed term like “strategic national interest”, it has whatever definition the party in political power gives it - and it changes all the time.  It is a meaningless anti-concept designed to camouflage the violation of rights using a nice-sounding term.

Who is to decide which individual shareholder rights will be violated by blocking a sale? Who decides which companies are strategic and overrides the opinions of others.  Who decides what is of national interest?  The people best suited and the only people morally correct to decide these questions are the ones who have put their decision-making ability on the line and risked their own capital by investing in the company, the people who own or wish to own the shares.  Who can say with certainty that you will not make more money elsewhere and bring better "strategic value" to Canada by selling instead of holding, although the question itself shows the absence of a proper morality based on individual rights.  Even if someone else is proven correct with time, it is your life, your money and your right to choose how you use it.  Those who would stop you are anti-rights, anti-freedom and anti-life.

A thought for your pennies

The Senate finance committee recommended that the federal government remove the penny from circulation.  It now costs more to produce the penny - about 1.5 cents each - than the coin's actual face value.  Since they have so little value, Canadians hoard pennies instead of spending them - an average of 600 coins per person across the country are floating around.  At first glance, this seems to be a sensible move, but have you ever thought about how our penny came to be worthless in the first place?

In a free economy, productivity increases steadily as people invent better ways of producing everything.  The philosophy of individual freedom born in the enlightenment led to discoveries in science and these were converted into practical applications by the businessmen of the industrial revolution. For decades, energy became more accessible, the cost of food became more affordable, housing quality improved, transportation expanded, health care became more obtainable and the ability of humans to shape their environment in better ways improved the quality of life more than in all preceding history combined.  A penny was made of copper and held an objective value that bought more and more goods and services for citizens of the freest countries.  “See a penny, pick it up, and all day long you’ll have good luck” made sense to people.

Why is a penny no longer considered worth keeping?  Look back to the 1930’s when disastrous government policies led to a rapidly rising government debt.  The government wanted to devalue the currency to pay back its foreign debts - effectively cheating the investors who had loaned the money.  The Bank of Canada was created by an act of parliament in 1934 and in 1938 was made a crown corporation, wholly owned by the government.  Since then, successive governments have borrowed and spent money in a vain effort to implement socialism to create their desired economic outcomes. 

Look at the graph of the value of a dollar from 1914 (as far back as the records of Statistics Canada show it) until 2009.  The start of this period begins with the currency debasement (inflation) of World War 1 but was followed by a period when the purchasing power of money rose over a 15-year period.  Since the creation of the Bank of Canada, the Canadian dollar has lost purchasing power every single calendar year except 1953.  The total effect is that an item with a price of 4.5 cents in 1934 now costs one dollar.  The converse of this is that a dollar has lost 95.5% of its value.

These days, as evident notably in the 1930’s and 1970’s, governments of all levels have borrowed money to bail out failing companies, pay for make-work projects and expand social programs.  Now, as then, these efforts are destined to fail as they pour resources into inefficient and even wasteful central planning that has never worked and cannot compete with the free market.  To make central planning work requires omniscience, and it should be clear to the casual observer that our politicians and bureaucrats are a far cry from that level of capability.  Year after year, decade after decade, government interference in the economy has proven to be needlessly wasteful and slows the rate of progress.  Just try placing the words “government” and “productivity” or “innovation” in the same sentence and see how many great results spring to mind.

Observe the current shining example of Premier McGuinty’s effort to implement his version of “green” power that is causing skyrocketing prices for energy (and consequently everything else) while lowering the standard of living for millions of Ontarians.  What incredible conceit it takes to think his ideas can produce power better than the combined cooperative efforts of all citizens of Ontario and Canada. To save us from our apparent ignorance, he is borrowing tens of billions in our name and torturing the energy market towards the shape he wishes it to take.  Vast and enduring inefficiencies are being entrenched in our electrical infrastructure – pain that will be felt for decades.  The fearful alternative is apparently the end of the world as we know it: death by plant fertilizer, also known as carbon dioxide.  It is destructive actions such as this that debase our currency and have led to the almost complete loss of value of the Canadian dollar, never mind the poor penny.

In tin-pot dictatorships the currency is regularly destroyed by political interference in the economy.  We may not be in as bad a condition as Zimbabwe with its recent issue of $100 Trillion dollar bills (that’s a number one followed by fourteen zeros), but we are afflicted by the same problem – people believing they know best how to run your life and using the weapon of state power to do just that.

Soaking the public by "Soaking up the sun"

Ontario's microFit program received macroAttention in a two-page article in the June 11 Ottawa Citizen, starting on the cover of the Homes section.  The story focuses on a few homeowners who have installed large photovoltaic solar arrays on their roof or on a free-standing pole-mount system.  Allan and Shelley Shusterman are featured in the article and they call it a win-win situation.  Unfortunately, they have ignored the unseen and helpless victims in this arrangement that makes it a big lose-win-win.

The unwilling victims are the rest of the citizens of Ontario, who lose out because they must foot the bill for this madness against their will.  The fundamental problem is that photovoltaic systems are completely uneconomical except in the most remote situations, such as in the country far away from the electrical grid or in space.  If it actually made any sense to install these systems, then they would sprout up all over the place without the use of government force against innocent citizens.  I have had a small solar system for 20 years because my cottage is on an island not connected to the grid, and I know from personal experience how expensive each watt of power is to produce. 

I have not installed any solar panels at my home, even though I live in a rural area with a large, south-facing roof, because I would be stupid to spend all that money to produce electricity when I can buy it about fifteen times cheaper, even from an inefficient government monopoly like from Hydro One. It would be like buying an electric car for $300,000 instead of a regular $20,000 car. Like almost every Ontario resident, I have chosen NOT to waste money on solar panels, yet the Ontario government is forcing me to pay others to put panels on their property.  The Shusterman's say "it's all money in the bank", "it's the best investment we've got" and "better than my stock portfolio, and the risk is nil".  This is a deliberate ignorance of the fact that all the risk is borne by their fellow citizens and their windfall investment return that is better than owning the shares of the great companies of Canada and the world (stock portfolio) is paid for by the people who have enough sense to see that solar panels are a poor investment.  The Shusterman's are using the force of government to make the rest of us pay 80.2 cents per kilowatt for their scheme when we know electricity can be economically produced for only about 5 cents per kilowatt.

I can see several of these solar panel systems not far from my home.  Every time I see one, it makes me mad to know my family's hard-earned money is being taken against our will by the Ontario government and given to people who are only too happy to take the money from their neighbors.  Whether they are ignorant of economics or doing it deliberately, they are still doing it. 

Why I do not install my own solar array and get back at those who are taking my money?  Because I am fully aware of how immoral the microFit program is, and being aware of it would make me guilty of doing deliberate harm to others.  Make no mistake - I like solar photovoltaics!  I like how the technology is improving and in time will hopefully become as economical as the current mainstream energy sources.  I applaud scientists who discover new energy technologies and companies that make them available to consumers.  But all this takes place in normal, free decisions made by individuals in any case, absent government coercion.  Government interference serves to distort the proper market signals and twists the economy into directions people do not wish to go.  How's this for a political philosophy: "if people using their own intellect and money will not buy solar panels then we will force them to pay for others to do so"?  What do we call this type of political system, where the state overrides the wishes of individuals, supposedly for their own good?  We call it socialism. 

I have a message to all of you out there who are already using the microFit program or who are planning to do so - please stop hurting the rest of us!  Go ahead and buy your panels, but don't sign up for the microFit program to force us pay for your decision!

Green China

Financial Post Letter writer Mahmood Elahi makes fundamental errors of philosophic, economic and scientific thought in his letter praising China's so-called "green" efforts. 

Philosophically, he ignores the blatant fact that China's economy is still largely a military dictatorship with laws changed to suit the rulers of the day and the rights of millions of citizens violated in many ways every day.  To call the current status of China capitalist is to ignore the fundamental meaning and definition of capitalism: the system that protects individual rights.

Economically, he ignores the fact that the maglev trains, solar panels and many other projects are being forced upon the population by government use of power.  Few, if any of these grandiose projects would take place in the same way if the people were given the freedom to choose their own paths in life, own their personal property and spend their own money.

Scientifically he ignores the fact that carbon dioxide is not pollution but rather is an essential plant nutrient on which human life depends, drought is not caused solely by evaporation and certainly not by human progress while air pollution is a byproduct of a relatively poor society and decreases as a society becomes wealthy and can afford to address the problem.

Four dirty secrets about clean energy

Wow, Alex Epstein really does a thorough job of pointing out the dirty contradictions of and harm done by the "clean energy" acolytes.  In his article, Epstein points out

1. If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.  What the greenies want is to ram their ideology down our throats.

2. Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.  Even after decades of massive state subsidies, these energy sources only provide a minute fraction of current energy needs, and are far more expensive.
3. There are promising carbon-free energy sources--hydroelectric and nuclear--but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.  The cleanies may talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they run the other way. 

4. The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.  The cleanies not only want us to use their preferred energy sources, that are massively uneconomical, but they fundamentally want us to die and stop interfering with the rocks, dirt, wind, and bugs of what they describe as "nature".  Their version of nature does not include human life, so if we all died they would think that was just peachy. 

Why on Earth does anyone listen to the eco-fascists?  They have been lulled by decades of socialism to think that government and the favored elites know better than they do, and so are easily led to delegate growing parts of their lives to others.  Only a rediscovery and return to a philosophy of individual rights can reverse this trend.  Until and unless the leaders in society learn this, the same intellectual errors will persist.

The federal chopping block

Terence Corcoran on potential cuts to federal spending kicks off the discussion about how the federal government has not even begun to think about ways to significantly reduce spending.  Treasury Board head Tony Clement has talked about reducing spending by less than 1%.  Imagine if gas prices were studied at length, announced to be coming down, and then prices fell by only one cent?  Yawn. 

What is needed is a fundamental discussion and review of the proper and moral role of government in Canadian society.  Originally a mostly-free nation, our lives and economy have become choked with laws, regulations and rules about almost everything we do all day long.  Hundreds of thousands of government workers spend their careers either operating monopolies that prevent us from making free decisions or designing and implementing punishments if we make choices that do not meet their approval. 

What if you want to build your home your own way?  Sorry, thousands of rules prevent you from doing so.  Want to buy your food from the farmer or supplier of your own choosing?  Sorry, our food producers are strangled in red tape too.  Would you like to choose your own occupation?  Sorry, there are libraries of rules about who can do what for whom, how, when, and for how much. Wish there was a competitive market for electricity to keep your costs down?  No luck there since the government forces hydro companies down your throat and prevents competition.  Do you want to live your life unmolested by state functionaries and meddlers who think they know better than you how to run your life?  Lots of luck with that.

Stephen Harper was once outwardly in favour of the freedom of individuals to live life in peaceful pursuit of happiness, meaning a vastly reduced size of the state.  In minority governments any proposed changes could have been voted down at any time.  Now he has a chance to show greatness and live by the principles that once defined him.  Will he be just another politician who gains power and adopts the same old methods that have seen government ooze into every corner of our lives? Or, will he be willing to spend four years making human rights and freedoms the cornerstone of his term, lifting the burden of government from our backs? By clearly explaining the almost forgotten philosophy and principles of freedom to the public along the way and being willing to lose the next election if the voters cannot stand a rollback of socialism and the ensuing economic boom that would come with it, Harper could earn a place among the great politicians - one who is in it for the people and not for power.

Gas about methane

So Ontario's Environment Commissioner (do we really have a Commissioner for this too?) Gord Miller says Ontario landfills like the one on Ottawa's Trail Road should not trap and burn methane emissions to produce energy.  His rationale is that the process of trapping gas releases gas faster than otherwise, and so because this is claimed to doom the Earth to burn up from the so-called "greenhouse effect", we should let landfills decompose more slowly.  There are some makor errors in his thinking.

First, trapping methane and using it for energy does not release more gas, it just changes the timing of the release.  Since this technology is relatively new (Ottawa started doing this only in 2007 and was ahead of the curve), any rational business would try to capture an increasing percentage of the gas created in a landfill, so escaping gas will reduce over time, not increase, hopefully to the point where almost all of it is capured and burned to produce energy.  If municipalities are operating the energy production facilities and are not improving their ability to capture gas, turn the job over to private businesses and they will certainly do so.

Second, there is a growing pile of high quality research findings indicating that not only is the planet not warming significantly because of man-made gas emissions, but that man's effect on the global temperature is completely offset by natural balancing mechanisms.  When one greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide rises, another, such as water vapour, decreases exactly enough to restore the balance.  Thus, changes in the global mean temperature are only caused by external changes in energy such as the solar cycles, Earth's core, planetary orbital mechanics and cosmic ray intensity.  The microscopic fraction of our atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide may change slightly, but does not cause climate change.  Thus, we don't need to worry about our emissions unless they are noxious, such as particulates, sulfides or other compounds proven to harm man's health.

If the government would get out of the business of science, get out of the business of handling garbage and get out of the business of producing energy, then the worries listed by the Environment Commissioner would be proven false by the population making their own choices in life and the government could get out of the environmental business too.

Not so good counsel from prominent Canadians

In today's Ottawa Citizen page A3 there was a full-page spread with advice "prominent" Canadians have for Prime Minister Harper Counsel from prominent Canadians.  Apparently Postmedia News did not think to consult anyone other than socialists since all seven of the interviewees provided only recommendations to increase the invasiveness of government in our lives. 

The head of the Canadian Medical Association applauded the current health care monopoly, as if physicians left free to practice their profession without government force could not built better practices, and patients left free to choose their health care could not do better than legions of bureaucrats.  He erred when he said "for tha last century, medicare has been an important contributor to our country's economy, productivity and quality of life."  Maybe he does not realize that the government only took control of a large part of health care a few decades ago and that ever since then cost of health care and its availability to citizens has been decreasing. 

A professor of climate modelling says Harper should consult past politicians and all the socialists who were not elected to lead the government when formulating environmental policy.  He conveniently ignores the fact that all climate models have failed to predict the actual climate going forward.  Anyone willing to torture the equations hard enough can build a model to replicate past data.  However, when models have been tested in the unknown future data they have been spectacularly wrong.  Consider that every single model used in the IPCC reports of the past has predicted steeply rising temperatures but the actual satellite data has shown level to decreasing tempteratures.  The modelers have ignored the proper effect of clouds in modulating temperature and failed to account for solar output cycles. By avoiding the two most important variables in climate cycles, no wonder the models based on atmospheric carbon dioxide have been so far off base.

A doctoral student in sociology advises the Prime minister to remain true to the values on which this country was founded.  Apparently she thinks those values include major portions of the communist manifesto instead of individual rights and freedoms as documented in the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Constitution Act, the Canadian Bill of Rights etc. 

The vice-president of CARP provides mostly a prescription for more government intervention but does have the one reference to individual freedom in the whole page: the elimination of a mandatory retirement age.

A playwright says that a majority government mandate does not mean Harper is actually allowed to change anything important, as if the hundreds of thousands of controls over our lives put in place over the last hundred years cannot be removed without another vote.  He wants Harper to leave Canada in its original condition, ignoring that when Canada was founded, individuals were responsible for their own lives, accountable for not violating the rights of others and largely left to make their own way in life as they saw fit, without a massive central government to tell them how to build their house, grow their food, travel, work, live and die.  In fact, in many ways the original Canada is the opposite of the one we have today.  We still have a great country, but this is despite the pervasive force used by government, not because of it.

The mayor of Calgary wants billions of dollars for "cities", meaning for another layer of state controls.  One level of government is to tax citizens and give the money to another layer of government.  How's that for freedom and accountability?

The leader of an advocacy group makes nice-sounding but meaningless suggestions for "growing inequality", "listening to the Canadians who did not vote for him" and "finding a common path forward".

Not one of these prominent people made reference to the right of individuals to peacefully purse their own happiness in life, free of interference from the state.  Except for the reference to removing mandatory retirement, none of them spoke about removing the giant burden of government from the backs of citizens who simply wish to make their own way in life.  Further, they only tended to make fatal errors in knowledge of the history of Canada and the freedoms our Country was founded upon - the freedoms responsible for the great scientific, technological and economic progress that comes when individual rights are protected instead of suppressed. 

Maybe it is time we tried capitalism for a change, instead of socialism or the mixed economy.  Unfortunately, the prominent Canadians chosen by Postmedia News wouldn't even recognize capitalism if it was laid out on the table in front of them, so there is no help there!

The election speech we'll never hear

Fellow citizens, I stand before you today, not to ask you to help my party seize even more control over your lives, but to restore the rights and freedoms inherent in your nature as rational beings.  These rights are not artificial gifts from the state, but inalienable rights you are endowed with by your very nature.  For humans to survive and thrive, you must use your minds to re-shape the world around you.  To use your mind you must be free to live.  To bring your ideas into reality you must be free to act on them and to own the consequences of your actions.  Thus, the three great human rights are 1)life, 2)liberty to act, and 3)property ownership. 

So long as you do not violate the rights of others, the laws of a just society protect your rights against violation by other individuals, by other countries, and especially against your own government.  To protect your rights there must be a government based on objective laws to which we delegate the initiation of force.  Only such a government can properly operate a police force, a court system, a prison system and a military.  All other parts of life are not a proper role for government since they do not require the initiation of force.  The principles to create a truly free society were discovered over two hundred years ago but have never been fully implemented.  If elected, my party will begin the process of converting Canada into a free country by unwinding the many mistakes that have been spliced into our government in the last hundred or so years.

When the government used the Bank of Canada to take over control of our currency we thought the government could manage it better than freely acting citizens.  Instead, successive governments have printed money like forgers, taking wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.  They have borrowed vast sums, creating a debt that hangs over your head, your children’s heads and their children’s heads.  The result is that the value of our dollar has fallen to about 4.5 cents, meaning the cost of living has risen more than 20 times over in about 100 years.  We will gradually return to the gold standard, so there is an objective value for money and not an imaginary one.  Government spending will never again be allowed to spiral out of control.

When government initiated force in your economic activities by creating departments like Industry, Resources, Environment, Economic Development, Agriculture, and many others that have created hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations to make you act the way they think is best, they claimed it was for your own good.  We will begin the process of returning freedom to your economic activities by unwinding our massive bureaucracies.  Since the intrusions are numerous and deep, the process will take many years and you will naturally have to adapt your business models.  The final effect will be higher employment, productivity and wealth creation.  Each of you will have the right to work as hard as you wish, earn as much as you want and spend it how you choose. The positive and negative consequences of your choices will be yours alone.  You will not be made to pay for the choices of others.

When agencies such as the CBC, CRTC, Telefilm and others were created the rationale was the promotion of Canadian culture.  In the real world the result has been to stifle innovation, punish some to reward others and create a culture where political pull determines success.  My party recognizes that true culture is a product of the choices of individuals and not something to be created or contorted by the use of government force.  In a free society artists and creators of all types may produce whatever they wish and their products, like all others, are judged by fellow individual citizens.  The degree you value an artistic or cultural product is clearly indicated by your willingness to spend your own earnings to enjoy it.  You will make up your own mind which artists will be rewarded.

Although health care falls under provincial responsibility in the Constitution Act 1967, our federal government has increasingly taxed you to pay for the ballooning provincial spending.  If elected, we will begin the process of reducing federal taxes as we reduce federal payment for health care.  We will also start to enforce your right to choose your own health care.  It is immoral to prevent you from choosing your own doctor, paying for your own treatment and equally wrong to force doctors to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of others.  We recognize the right of medical professionals to choose their own path in life, run their own business and earn their own compensation.  Health care does not spring, fully formed and free for all, from the whim of an elected official.  It cannot be encouraged by strangling it with government.  When you are able to keep more of your own money, you will spend according to your own personal health priorities and medical professionals will adapt their services to meet those priorities. Just as occurs in all free markets, innovation and quality will increase and a variety of business models will proliferate to meet all market demands.

I could spend all day listing and explaining the forceful interventions in your life that our party would withdraw if we are elected.  From the regulation and dictation of what language you speak and write, the control over the education of your children, the financial dependencies and contortions created by wealth destroying programs such as EI, OAS, CPP, the long and growing list of tax credits and rebates, to the creation of different classes of citizens through laws incorporating racism and sexism into our society, the list is unimaginably long.  We know the damage of a century of creeping socialism cannot be undone in a year or even an electoral mandate.  Although it will likely take a generation or longer to accomplish, we will begin the process and nurse it along as fast as possible. 

We do not want to control your life.  We do not know better than you how to spend your money.  We should not substitute our wills for your own.  The changes will seem huge at first, require large adjustments and will not be without pain for some, but we believe you and all other individuals have the right to run their own lives and make their own decisions, for better or for worse, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.  When conflicts among individuals occur, we will have a system of objective, clear and consistent laws to settle them

On election day, vote to take back your rights as a thinking, living individual and vote to take back your life and responsibility for it from the control of others.

Randall Denley to run for Ontario PC's in Ottawa West - Nepean

Good on Randall Denley for deciding to take the plunge and run for office.  My perception from reading his columns over the years is that he generally favours the freedom of individuals to run their own lives instead of using the force of government to run their lives for them.  Given the overwhelming tendency of all political parties to increase the power and controls of government, any move in the direction of individual freedom has to be seen as a good thing. 

Hopefully, after years of observing and commenting on the poor ethics and practices of government, Randall will not be too quickly poisoned by the political electoral process and revert to partyspeak.

I'll have a large Tim Horton's health care please

During recent election speeches and in his first election TV ad, NDP leader Jack Layton has made much of the fact that a BC hospital emergency department was so overwhelmed by demand in late February that four patients were triaged in the hospital’s Tim Hortons location.  While opposition politicians have trumpeted this as a failure by the government to spend enough on health care, sound economic second thought should recognize that Canadians would stand to benefit greatly if health care was offered by institutions that operated as well as the iconic coffee shop chain.

A distinguishing and crippling feature of our current health care system is its socialist structure.  A brief examination of the principles of the Canada Health Act them reveals why the system is built to fail.  One principle states that all administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis. The fatally flawed implication here is that profit is a bad thing, when in fact the existence of profit in a business service is the clearest possible signal that consumers value the service and want more of it.  The Tim Hortons web site says, “the chain is dedicated to satisfying the changing tastes of guests through continuous product innovation. As consumer tastes grow, so do the choices.” In 2009 the company showed profits of a few hundred million dollars from their 3,750 locations.  It is clear that Canadians voted in massive numbers, through their own individually hard-earned dollars, to support the business of Tim Hortons over those of their competitors.  If others offer you a better product, you will certainly abandon Tim’s and shift your dollars elsewhere.  To thrive, the company must remain at the leading edge of innovation in both products offered and operational excellence.  If the company failed, you would not mourn its passing as it would imply that an even better business is available.

The second principle of the Act is that of comprehensiveness, meaning all necessary health services, including hospitals, physicians and surgical dentists, must be insured. This deliberately excludes a vast portion of the actual health care services available to and necessary for Canadians, with dentists, physical therapists, chiropractors, podiatrists, opticians, ambulances prescription medication and others as prominent examples of health services deemed unnecessary by the Act.  Many Canadians buy health insurance to fill this gap, and in my own household we pay about $300 per month for family health and dental coverage.  This helps pay for, although it certainly does not cover all the costs associated with helping us see clearly using glasses and contact lenses, treat our occasional illnesses through medication, handle our back and next pain through chiropractic care, moderate the damage of bunions through podiatry or even maintain oral hygiene and general health through regular dental care.  In fact, although we are forced to pay for it through our taxes, we, like most Canadians, access public health care less frequently than private health care.

What is our experience with private health care?  Well, the team at Place D’Orleans Dental is super-efficient, friendly, knows each of us well and keeps up with our life changes while providing us with state of the art services.  The modern and efficient services at Shoppers Drug Mart located at multiple convenient locations all over town can fill prescriptions quickly and refills can be prepared in advance of pickup with a self-service phone call. Non-prescription health products are abundant and inexpensive.  Dr. Lawrence and his staff at the Broadview Spine and Health Centre quickly diagnosed my sciatic problem a few years ago, explained that treatment would likely be highly effective and promptly proceeded to eliminate a debilitating and progressive pain and mobility problem, with periodic maintenance avoiding all recurrence and other problems since then.  The fine people at Lenscrafters in Place D’Orleans periodically and quickly manufacture and custom-fit glasses for us that are always stylish while improving in quality and durability.  Though we have not yet used it, the near-miraculous corrective laser eye surgery can be done extremely safely in mere minutes at an amazingly low price.

The third principle of the Canada health Act is universality, meaning all insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.  This sounds nice in theory, but when implemented through a centrally controlled, profitless system it leads to vast inequities.  People who know how the system works are able to exploit it much better than those who do not.  Long waits for basic attention from a harried professional is common, diagnosis can take months and treatment even longer.  The monopoly system administration mostly sees you as an expense, a financial drain on resources, a thing to be dealt with and discharged as soon as possible instead of a valued customer whose satisfaction is the primary goal and whose time is too valuable to waste.  If your dentist treated you like this you would quickly select another one from the abundant supply.  If your family has the financial means after paying your tens of thousands in taxes each year, you may bypass the inefficient public system and buy the care you need elsewhere. 

The final principle of the Act I want to address is accessibility, that says all insured persons have reasonable access to health care facilities and all physicians, hospitals, etc, must be provided reasonable compensation for the services they provide. A core problem in a centrally controlled service operating in the absence of the vital information provided by a price system is that it is nearly impossible to operate with even a moderate degree of efficiency.  The usual free-market intelligence signals that tell entrepreneurs where to locate, what customers want to buy and how to provide service most efficiently are virtually absent.  Consequently, Canadians often encounter aging structures, antiquated facilities, rushed and impersonal services and incomplete care.  In a free market there is constant adaptation to customer preferences, powerful reward for innovation and improvement, a burning desire to gain and retain business relationships, efficient communication, on-time scheduling, adoption of the latest technology and steadily improving value for the dollar.  The full decision-making ability of every consumer and entrepreneur is harnessed most efficiently into an infinitely complex web of information flow. A centrally controlled government monopoly has only a tiny fraction of this information to work with and is inevitably less effective.

If only the entire Canadian health care system was run the way Tim Hortons runs its business and competes effectively with all-comers, then Canadians would have inexpensive access to all the health care they could buy.  Tim Hortons health care?  Bring it on Jack!