Ever since I started posting some political articles on this website, people have been asking me to elaborate on some of my views. Until now I've taken my actions lightly, said very little. However, in the current climate of both local and world politics, I've decided to write the introduction to some of the issues and my point of view on them. Let's get to work.
UPDATE ~ 2025-08-21
While going through my posts to relaunch my website, I re-read all of them. When I got to this one, well let's just say a lot of it made me cringe! Apparently I'm a very different person at 46 than I was at 23 (when I wrote the initial article) or 24 (when I posted my first few updates to it). Some of these stances I still stand by, but others I'd rather leave in the past. See, while I was a hardcore Libertarian back then, I'm an Anarchist who'd love nothing more than to see capitalism relegated to the history books these days. I guess you could say I've taken a bit of a hard Left turn from my old views! I think at some point I'll likely write a new post to go over my views these days, but I'm leaving this one as-is with all its warts and blemishes intact, as a reminder of where I used to stand and how much I've changed in the last 20 years. ~tT
The silly little War on Drugs
Okay, so recently the Canadian government started discussing the idea of decriminalizing marijuana. This set off all the alarms for our neighbours to the south. The great American goverment immediately started ranting about the evils of drugs, and punishments for any country to not follow its policy on drugs. Well - I say, to hell with them. I believe, have always believed, and will continue to believe, in the ending of the war on drugs.
The war on drugs has cost more lives and caused more pain than the drugs themselves could ever dream of. Our ridiculus notion that We the Government are best judges of what All People should do with their lives, is the basis of an entirely flawed system of governance. Our so called democracy is but a hypocracy. We elect all-powerful Lords over us, for a term. When we bore of one group of elected dictators, we choose another group of dictators. We not only put up with this travesty, we condone it.
Advising us what is good for us is not a problem. It's suggested, it's only neighborly. Telling us what is good for us, and forcing us to accept it, that is not neighborly, that is dictatorship. That is not democratic. All of the laws about drugs should be immediately repealed. Let people decide for themselves what they wish to do with their own bodies. It should not be a crime to punish oneself, nor a crime to 'have fun'. A crime is when an action of one person harms the wellbeing or rights of another person. Crimes without victims are not crimes. All victimless 'crimes' should be removed from the books. Someone who goes to the bar and has a drink is not a criminal. Someone who kills another person while driving under the influence of a judgement-altering substance *IS* a criminal.
If we forget the distinction between the two, we ignore the basis of all rights and freedoms. The simple principle of liberty that stands as the foundation of democracy, it has been said in many ways: "Do onto others, as you would have them do on to you", "Do as you will, as long as it does not harm another.", etc. We've heard the quotes, we've memorized many of them. Why is it then that we ignore all of them. In this issue, as well as all of the others I will discuss below, this simple principle is the basis of my entire philosophy.
The grand sanctum of Marriage
The issue of what the legal definition of marriage should be is one that makes me quite jolly. The fact that we have to argue over something that is absolutely ridiculus to begin with is quite funny.
Simply put, there should be *NO* legal definition of marriage, as marriage has no place in politics. Marriage is a completely personal, religious sanctum. There is should stay. Laws about marriage are as feasable as laws about blood sacrifice. They are topics that belong in places of theology, not in a court of law, nor in a government document.
Marriage should be given back to the faith structures of which it belongs, and the government should start focusing on topics that belong in the political spectrum.
UPDATE ~ 2003-11-26
Okay, so maybe I ended a little abuptly there, without explaining what I really mean by Marriage should not be a government-defined ritual. So here I will now get into the differences between Civil Unions and Marriage.
The government maintains a list of people joined in what is commonly referred to as marriage. A more proper term for this legal recognition of partnership is Civil Union. So the real question becomes, what should the definition of Civil Union be. For that I am going to give an answer that may shock and horrify some, and will definately be slightly controversial.
Some want the definition of marriage to stand as, "A union between a man and a woman." Others want it changed to, "A union between two persons." My definition of Civil Union is even simpler: "A union between consenting persons."
While I let that definition sink in, I'll continue with why Marriage and Civil Unions should be seperate, and how they could co-exist with one another.
If consenting persons decide they wish to be recognized by the government, they can apply for a Civil Union registration. This will be the same legal recognition that exists now under the term "marriage". However, they are not required to get "married" in a religious ceremony. Now, on the other hand, many religions have their own rules about what Marriage is, and how to define it. It should be left up to the individual faith to define it. If consenting persons who apply under the guidelines of said faith which to be married, they can then do so, in a religious ceremony. Most of the time, those getting married in a religious ceremony will also wish to get legal recognition from the government at the same time, and in this, the system will work the same way as it does now. Thus, while not all people joined in a civil union will be married, most married people will be recognized to be in a civil union.
So how is this different than it is today? Well for one, the terminology clears up some of the misconceptions about marriage, versus a legal recognition of partnership. While different religious faiths have different rules about who may be married, a civil union should apply to all people, with no restrictions. A union between consenting persons.
UPDATE ~ 2025-08-21
This is still generally my view, but perhaps I don't need to be quite as anal about the terminology difference. I think marriage is a perfectly good term to refer to any kind of union whether it's a legal structure or a religious ceremony. In many cases the people getting married will be doing both. I know at the United Church of Canada, any Unitarian Universalist congragation, and plenty of other religious groups same-sex marriage is totally accepted these days. Now if only we could find a way to recognize polyamorous relationships without falling into the pit-traps of religious polygamy... I think I'll leave that topic for a whole new post at some point!
Market Economy: In Loving Memory
Leave the market alone. That is by far the single most important statement of advise I can give any person or government. Leave it alone. Let it manage itself. A proper-working market economy will regulate itself, it will maintain its integrity, and it will be a hell of a lot more efficient than with the chains of government beurocracy.
Over taxation, regulation and complication of the market economy causes the majority of all economic and thus, social problems. Unemployment, increased poverty, widening wealth gap, businesses moving elsewhere, falling GDP and more. All of these only some of the examples of issues directly influenced by the government manipulation of the market economy. The laws to protect the businesses lead to discontent among the working class. Laws then to protect the working class lead to more problems for the employer. The cycle continues. Nobody wins. The employers suffer and the employees suffer. The unemployed suffer even more as now there are more of them, and less employment opportunities. We create our own problems. We, the people, who speak against the evils of 'big business' and 'the wealth gap', are the ones who instead of working towards solutions, only loby for more laws, making things worse. It's not more laws we need, it's less. It's getting the government's hands out of the market economy, and let it work out its own problems. More freedom means more business, more business means more jobs, which means more employment, which means less poverty. This would be the inverse of the current cycle of oppression leading to oppression, and instead would lead to a far more prosperous world than that one in which we now reside.
Gun Control or lack thereof
This item is aimed more at Canada, in light of its billion dollar boondoggle. The federal gun registry, a brilliant attempt to make all gun owners register their firearms. Some braniac up in Ottawa, most likely listening to how gun control worked for other governments, like the National Socialist party in Germany, decided that it would also work for Canada. Now this was a grand idea, while having a gun registered in some book in Ottawa won't do a damn thing to stop a little kid from getting ahold of a gun (registered or not) and accidently shooting someone. Now, aside from the fact that the gun registry doesn't actually do anything about gun crimes (as most criminals don't bother to register their guns anyway) the part that really bothers me is the cost of the damn thing. The good old Liberal government told us, way back when, that this lovely gun registry would probably cost a coupla million bucks. "Hey, no big deal" we said, a couple of million for this government is penny candy. So when the Auditor General Sheila Fraser came out and exposed that the actual implementation costs of the gun registry are to reach one billion dollars, well you can imagine we the people were not impressed. A billion bucks to put into place a worthless system which will never do anything but cost money and help a totalitarian government confisticate all firearms. Hey, sounds like a good bargain to me. It could have been much worse - they could have made a national moron registry. I figure a lot of the names on the quack registry would be people currently employed in Ottawa. Just a guess though.
UPDATE ~ 2003-11-26
So now you're probably wondering, if I think the gun registery is a bad idea, and a waste of money, what should we do to decrease violent crimes in Canada? That's simple. If even a tenth of the money they had spent on their registery, had instead been spent on enhancing law enforcement (RCMP, CSIS, etc.), they'd be able to focus more on stopping illegal gun trafficing, and cracking down on criminal organizations. (Note that ending the war on drugs would also free up of lot of wasted resources for our over-stressed police forces).
Kyoto
Oh, while we're on the topic of the government of Canada, I can't but help comment on the recent ratification of the Kyoto accord. Like the gun registry, it will end up costing us billions of dollars, and even worse, will result in a major loss of employment. Great, just what we need. What won't Kyoto do? Well it won't improve the environment, that's one thing it won't do. It won't clean up our air. It won't do anything that it's supposed to. First off, I believe that countries should take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions. As well as smog-generating polutants not covered by Kyoto. I believe nations should be working towards every aspect of cleaning up our environment. I believe that each nation, state/province, and municipality should have a part in this process. I do not think that an international aggreement which 'forces' certain targets will work. Especially when the aggreement has 'clean air credits' in it for countries to sell. It works something like this: We're going to reduce greenhouse gasses by buying 'credits' from a developing nation like Russia. Developing nations are excempt from doing anything at all about their greenhouse gas emmisions, so they will use the money they make selling us credits to build up their industries. Thus creating more pollution. Meanwhile, since we bought all of these credits, we havn't had to reduce our own emmisions, which means - there is more pollution now than before!
What a great deal. I love it. All I can say is, typical. Leave it up to our brilliant Liberal government to figure out another way to screw Canada. Oh well, it could be worse - we could have George W. as our 'fearless leader'. *Shudder* never mind, forget I even said that.
Freedom of Speech, as I've said before...
Do I really need to go into this topic? I'm quite sure anyone who has read any of my other rants has already figured out what I feel on this matter. Freedom of speech is a right that must never be quenched. If you don't like what you hear, don't listen, if you don't like what you see, don't look. Get with the program, and once more, do as you like, and let others do the same.
Age-based Laws, Affirmative action and other such nonsense
Okay, here we get into some touchy ground. I think my views in this area may conflict with a lot of people. I think they may piss a lot of people off. Do I care? Not a bit. Read the freedom of speech part above. Anyway, with that in mind, take the following with a grain of salt.
Laws based on age are for the most part highly prejudicial. I don't think our politicians (or the average citizen) actually remembers what it was like to be younger. That's why they like to make sure that people under certain ages have less rights than older people. Baloney. Of all the age based laws, I'd say only one that has any merrit at all is the age of guardianship (when someone is old enough to be a legal guardian, and no longer requires a legal guardian). "Now what," you say, "of the right to drive a vehicle, or operate heavy machinery?" Well that's a good question. While age may be a good indicator of when someone is ready to undertake one of those activities, it's not always the same. Different people mature at different levels, the tests from which licenses are issued from, should be based on personal skills, not on age. Of course that's just my opinion. Next!
I also believe that so called 'affirmative action' does nothing but promote reversed prejudice. I read a joke in a local paper the other day, it went to the effect of: One day at the company the boss comes in and tells everyone that due to cutbacks they have to lay someone off. The woman says, "Oh no you don't, try getting rid of me and I'll slap this company with a gender discrimination suit." The black guy says, "Wow buddy, don't even look this way if you don't want a racial discrimination suit." The guy in the wheelchair chips in, "Do you know what a physical disability discrimination suit would do to this company?" and the old man closes with, "You ungrateful little twit, fire me and you'll have an age discrimination suit thrown on your table before you can say oops." The boss looks around the room, and his eyes fall on the 20-something able-bodied white male. He begins to feel the eyes turn towards him, and finally blurts out, "I think I might be gay!"
Okay, sorry about that. But it was in the paper. What I'm getting to is that in trying to make sure people all have equal rights, we've gone beyond and began giving some people 'extra rights'. This is not equality. All people should have the same rights, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, physical characteristics, personality traits, sexual preferences or any other aspects of their personal lives. People should have the same rights, be judged on the same playing field, be standing on level ground. No lesser rights, no special rights. Only equal rights. 'Nuff said.
UPDATE ~ 2025-08-21
Remember when I said there were parts of this that really made me cringe? Well there's an awful lot of it is in the above section for sure... 😅
Taxes, employment and the ilk
Taxes. Oh, my. This one is a nasty subject. While I may have changed my views somewhat since writing my last rant about taxes, one thing hasn't changed - my opinion that most countries are heavily over-taxed. There are taxes on absolutely everything. As I wrote before, I still think it should be a crime to have income tax on the pension checks of retired seniors. That is just sick. I'm also an advocate for entirely flat taxes. Let's say if they must keep the insideous income tax, that it should be a fixed 10% (like a tithe) for everyone. It's simple, it makes tax prep work way easier, and it's not prejudicial. It's also not punishing people for being successful. I've always thought it interesting. Why would anyone want to achive success, if they are going to be punished for doing so?
The current restricted workplace is not a kind place. Why should I want to even work when I can collect more on welfare. Even if I wanted to work, all of the excess red tape makes my chances of finding a job even smaller. The very system set up to protect my rights as a working class citizen have actually contributed to my transition to a poverty class citizen. Like I said in the market economy section. Let it run itself and it will benifit all. We the working class included. Got 'ilk?
Final thoughts of a wandering mind.
Well I know this has been a long and boring update, but it is the most substancial thing I've put on here in a while. As a further subnote, since a lot of the material on this site is ranging in age from 1996 until to current date of January 16th, 2003, I'm going to start dating everything at the bottom, so you know when the lunacy came to me. If you want more information on some of the topics I have spoken of here, feel free to check out the Advocates for Self Government website. Also, if you want the best Instruction Manual for the principles of non-aggression, read this book by Mary Ruwart, a true prophet for our time. Anyway, enough rattling, I've given you some places to explore, and left you knowing a little more about my opinions. But as I said back at the start, this is just an introduction. There's a lot more to come. Be watching Huri|Net for more. Oh, if you have a reply to any of this, any comments at all, feel free to contact me.
UPDATE ~ 2025-08-21
Did you make it through all of that? I'm sorry. Like I said in my first 2025 update at the top, at some point I'll likely write a new post with my views these days.