Libertarian Candidate Scarborough-Rouge River

[alanjm]

As the Libertarian Party's candidate in Scarborough-Rouge River for the federal election, I would ask those who believe in individual rights and liberty to support my campaign and get involved locally with the Libertarian Party after the election.

My Platform

*Self-ownership and property rights. Greater personal and economic liberty.
*Repeal victimless "crimes". Police and courts should be focused on crimes of violence, theft and fraud.
*Restitution. Criminals should have to compensate their victims.
*End drug prohibition which enriches criminals and leads to violence.
*No to social engineering. No to government taking over the responsibility of families with child care subsidies.
*Oppose restrictions on freedom of expression. Preserve and enhance basic Charter freedoms.
*Preserve civil liberties, due process rights and habeas corpus.
*Humane treatment of all prisoners. Canada should take a stand against the abuse of detainees.
*End foreign interventionism. Strengthen the military, but only for defence.
*Non-aggression. Say no to the bombing of civilians and their homes.
*Canada should be militarily and politically independent.
*Stop the growth of government surveillance which threatens individual rights and liberties.
*End government domination of our lives through regulations, taxes, subsidies and fiat currency.
*Oppose Kyoto and let Canadians make their own decisions about climate change propaganda.
*Human needs first. Enhance property rights and say no to environmental central planning.
*Peace and genuine free trade with the world.

More here: http://www.canadianliberty.com/2006/0113.html
Website for the Libertarian Party of Canada: http://www.libertarian.ca

Contact Info:
Alan Mercer
Libertarian Candidate, Scarborough-Rouge River
amercer@libertarian.on.ca
Tel: (416) 629-0764

Authorized by the Official Agent for Alan Mercer

 

[cyberclark]

Sounds more like an an anarchist to me :wink:

 

[Jersay]

I like the NDP morte, sorry.

I especially don't like the Libertarian policy on Kyoto.

 

[nitzomoe]

RE: Libertarian Candidate

Im Voted Karigiannis already, but its good to noe the democratic process is in full swing in scarborough rouge river, it really is a nice place to live in and I hope it will be for years to come.

Resitution is a good idea in theory but not one that can be implmented too well.

Thanks though!

 

[MMMike]

Hi Alan, good luck to you on Monday. I'm just in the riding next door (Pickering-Scarborough). I like a lot of what the Libertarian party stands for, but not the Kyoto stance, and not the stance against foreign intervention. If we had followed that theory we might be living under Hitler's jackboot now.

 

[Finder]

Jesus, just like a politician to just post one or two times in hopes of getting the people of the forum to vote for him.

Anyhow... Libertianism is fine... but extreme right wing libertaianism is not.

*cringes to thinking about living in a right wing libertairian Canada*


edit: Reading it again... I usually support some libertiarian beliefs.... but damn....

 

[alanjm]

Sounds more like an an anarchist to me :wink:

It's related. Libertarians include both anarcho-capitalists or individualist anarchists (both are non-violent) and libertarians like me who believe in minimum government and maximum self-government. "Anarchism" is not a good word because it is associated with violent left-wing types of anarchism.

 

[alanjm]

Re: RE: Libertarian Candidate

Im Voted Karigiannis already, but its good to noe the democratic process is in full swing in scarborough rouge river, it really is a nice place to live in and I hope it will be for years to come.

Resitution is a good idea in theory but not one that can be implmented too well.

Thanks though!

There is more info on restitution here:
http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro/tutorial/outcomes/restitution

There used to be more of it hundreds of years ago.
A crime is really a violation of a victim's rights, not a crime against
something abstract like the State or Society, which is the current doctrine.

To implement it properly, the justice system would need to be completely focused around the notion of making the criminal restore the victim or the victim's family as much as possible. Non-violent offenders would not usually need to go to prison. Violent offenders could pay for their stay in prison by working. Reward money to witnesses could also be funded this way. And wrongful convictions could be compensated by those responsible in the same way. If it's done properly and across the board for juveniles also, it could act as a serious deterrent.

 

[alanjm]

Re: RE: Libertarian Candidate Scarborough-Rouge River

Hi Alan, good luck to you on Monday. I'm just in the riding next door (Pickering-Scarborough). I like a lot of what the Libertarian party stands for, but not the Kyoto stance, and not the stance against foreign intervention. If we had followed that theory we might be living under Hitler's jackboot now.

Thanks very much.

As far as Kyoto goes, it should be up to each of us to decide whether we take it seriously or not, and what we do about it. How can suddenly carbon dioxide and methane be put in the same class as a pollutant? Human beings are a part of nature and what we do in terms of fueling our vehicles and heating our homes and running our businesses is totally legitimate as long as we respect the rights of our neighbours. The greenhouse gas people may be right or wrong about the idea that humans are causing climate change - I have doubts about their interpretation of what's going on - Greenland used to be green for example. But they are overreaching in (1) they try to get governments to force us to change our lives. This is much more destructive than what they fear. (2) they think that these policies will make any difference to global warming.

-------------
As far as non-intervention, individuals go and fight where they like, as they did in the Spanish Civil War - some group of people pick the bad guys and go fight them. Croatian-Canadians went to fight the "evil" Serbs in Yugoslavia. Fine for them, that's their choice. But it was not right for NATO to bomb Yugoslavia, to add more evil to evil.

The dangerous part is letting your government decide who is good and who is evil, and forcing you into a situation where you're at war with someone you don't want to be at war with, and where you don't want to sacrifice your liberties for the war effort (as happened during WWI even in America) and where the government proceeds to decimate cities in your name - as happened with the Allied bombing of Germany and in Hiroshima. We're the "good" guys and the other side - they're the "bad" guys and no longer human. The war propaganda of Western governments is absolutely amazing. The taxes of Russia and the West went to fund these nuclear weapons that were used to terrorize the world for decades. And they still havent' been disposed of.

The people of Germany and Europe should have been allowed to gradually overthrow Hitler and the Nazis internally. Instead, we had a disaster instead in which millions lost their lives and suffered horrible trauma, and where Eastern Europe was left enslaved.

This is what we're being set up for again with U.S. foreign policy, except the enemy this time will be Iran or Syria or the whole Muslim world.

Everything should be scaled down.

Everybody agrees: "War is bad, war is bad" but we need the policies to stop repeating these mistakes.

Take a look at WWI. It was caused by alliances. And after it was over, people agreed it was a horrible mistake that modern democratic governments sent their men to their deaths in such large numbers for nothing worthwhile. But what was so moral about those governments - each of them had their own empire. What's the difference now with the attitudes of governments? We have the same kind of doctrine of "collective security" which will escalate every conflict.

And everybody moralizes about how the other side is "evil" and their government is not democratic, and how it's all for "freedom". Iraqis are not their government.

That's why the only legitimate reason for a military response is if we are attacked - in self-defence. And the response needs to be proportional and within the limits of morality.

 

[Jersay]

As far as Kyoto goes, it should be up to each of us to decide whether we take it seriously or not, and what we do about it. How can suddenly carbon dioxide and methane be put in the same class as a pollutant? Human beings are a part of nature and what we do in terms of fueling our vehicles and heating our homes and running our businesses is totally legitimate as long as we respect the rights of our neighbours. The greenhouse gas people may be right or wrong about the idea that humans are causing climate change - I have doubts about their interpretation of what's going on - Greenland used to be green for example. But they are overreaching in (1) they try to get governments to force us to change our lives. This is much more destructive than what they fear. (2) they think that these policies will make any difference to global warming.

What the heck are you talking about, Greenland was green. Learn your facts,

the Vikings colonized Greenland and iceland and through termonolgy called the cold iceland chunk of land Greenland to confuse opponents as the Viking colonists populated Iceland.

 

[brucejlk]

I think his (Alan) main point is "small government".

Most people would agree that our government has gotten too big. In fact it has gotten fat!

We need to return to the days of old (early 1900s) where government wasn't so involved in our lives.

We also need a strong constitution like in the United States as well as a new Bill of Rights that stands up for individual rights (the smallest minority is the "Individual" Ayn Rand).

More importantly, we need a judicial system that would adhere to such a the Consitution and Bill of Rights and abides by it's objective laws.

Bruce

 

[Jersay]

We need to return to the days of old (early 1900s) where government wasn't so involved in our lives.

We also need a strong constitution like in the United States as well as a new Bill of Rights that stands up for individual rights (the smallest minority is the "Individual" Ayn Rand).

More importantly, we need a judicial system that would adhere to such a the Consitution and Bill of Rights and abides by it's objective laws.

If you want that, go to America. Talk to caracel kid, individual rights in Canada is totally different than in America.

I enjoy are Constitution and Charter of Rights and freedom as it is, it can be improved but I don't want an American constitution which is way different to Canadian standards, (bearing arms) for one. That should be left to police, military (which I'm apart), and hunters and expert marksmen.

 

[Jersay]

Also the Canadian government in the BNA Act was suppose to be strong while the American government was suppose to be weak.

In the 1900s, I don't think Canada had a weak central government, not at all.

 

[brucejlk]

Hey Jersay,

Your probably right. In the early 1900s Canada probably didn't have a weak central government. But I think that it was still considerably smaller than the size it is today.

Bruce

 

[Jersay]

Hey Jersay,

Your probably right. In the early 1900s Canada probably didn't have a weak central government. But I think that it was still considerably smaller than the size it is today.

Bruce

Oh I agree, but that was because it has evolved.

Health care, and other departments weren't around in the 1900s.

So that would be why it was small.

 

[I think not]

Also the Canadian government in the BNA Act was suppose to be strong while the American government was suppose to be weak.

In the 1900s, I don't think Canada had a weak central government, not at all.

Jersay, the American government was weak in the first years after the revolution. They realized decentralization of power brings disunion and they made it stronger to keep the union together.
Your system of government breeds disunion, you need it stronger if you're hoping Canada will stick together.

 

[Jersay]

Jersay, the American government was weak in the first years after the revolution. They realized decentralization of power brings disunion and they made it stronger to keep the union together.
Your system of government breeds disunion, you need it stronger if you're hoping Canada will stick together.

So we need more union not disunion. Makes sense.

i claim that if we keep decentralizing the provinces and Canada, you wouldn't need the federal government after a certain time period.

But maybe that's what Canadians want.

 

[I think not]

So we need more union not disunion. Makes sense.

i claim that if we keep decentralizing the provinces and Canada, you wouldn't need the federal government after a certain time period.

But maybe that's what Canadians want.

I don't pretend to know what Canadians want, other than what I hear, and most of them feel Canada won't be around as it is today in 50 years. More like it will splinter into smaller states.

You keep decentralizing and decentralizing, as if more of it, isn't enough. Provinces can overide Parliament with the notwithstanding clause. I don't know what Canadians want, but it appears they worry more about their sovereignty from the US whereas it is my belief, your very actions are causing this disunion. Your reactions are having a negative effect on Canada the US could never in its wildest dreams ever hope to accomplish.

 

[Jersay]

I agree.

 

[I think not]

Good, so hurry up and run for office, so I can see a united Canada. Make it quick, I ain't got 50 years :wink: