Terrorism

This LTE was sent to the Victoria Times Colonist shortly after 9/11happened, something to hold in mind when asked by President Obama to make 9/11 the day of public service.

Sirs:
On September 11th 2001, some 3500 of our fellow citizens started their day the same way we did, harboring no grudge toward others and simply wanting to put in a productive day. They were denied that desire by nineteen people with a death wish and a determination to take as many innocent people with them as possible. It is to late to help the victims but they will not have died in vain if we learn from the massacre that took their lives.
There are three things we need to keep in mind about the perpetrators of these murders.
Firstly they both hated and feared capitalism - freedom, for those more comfortable with politically correct words. For too many years, we in the free world, in an attempt to avoid confrontation, have not pointed out that capitalism and freedom are irrevocably linked. To quote Kenneth Minogue ‘capitalism is what people do if you leave them alone.’ That is the reason why wealth follows capitalism, because it so closely matches human nature. When free of restrictions, each of us gives our support to the things we value the most and inevitably we support those people who give us things that enhance our freedom. Freedom gave us capitalism and capitalism continues to give us back ever more freedom. Cars, washers, airplanes, velcro, telephones, ball point pens, computers, zippers and endless other items, these are all things that free more of our one constant in life, time, to pursue in the most rewarding manner we can think of.
The murderers who brought down the World Trade Center towers pick their targets well. While the greatest symbol of freedom is the Statue of Liberty, the most visible symbol of capitalism was the Trade Center towers. These murderers problem with capitalism was two fold: they hated capitalism for the phenomenal goods and services it makes available, and they feared capitalism for what it does to the people of their own countries.
They try to hold their own people in the iron grip of an unforgiving and unmodifiable medieval religion that can’t compete with capitalism. They desire an impoverished quality of life for all. Bin Laden, who has enough money to live where and how he wants, chooses instead a prayer blanket, an AK-47 and a cave in a desolate gravel pit.
Secondly, they were so poor, they had to steal the tools they used for killing from the very people they are trying to destroy, from us. Without access to our technology, they would never have achieved any notoriety at all. They might have killed a few people with their bare hands but without access to capitalist technology, they would never be a problem. But instead of denying them access to harm us, we’ve now begun to dismantle our freedoms in a futile effort to defend ourselves.
Thirdly, they were very determined. They held their distorted values so dear, they had no difficulty dying for them. As Victor Hugo stated years ago ‘there is nothing as strong as an idea who’s time has come. Their ideas gave them the strength to destroy the WTC.
And that brings up the main question for us, do we believe as passionately that we have the right to defend our way of life from people who are determined to destroy that way of life? How strongly do we hold our ideals? Only by being outrage at what was done to us and becoming determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve our way of life will we win. Even with our somewhat crippled semi-capitalistic system we can easy produce far more than these barbarians could even think of destroying.
But we also need to remind our governments that a return to pre September 11th standards is not an option. Black Tuesday happened because our government’s main focus has become the redistribution of our wealth and, rather than protecting individuals from aggression, the focus has become tax and spend. That is one of the reasons why we keep hearing our leaders urge us to ‘get back to normal’ because they see no tax revenue coming in while they can’t stop what is going out.
Our inept political leaders consider that by installing more and more bureaucrats to monitor our every action and transaction, they can make society safe. They fail to remember, in North America some 400 million of us did largely live in peace before 9/11. More policing of the law abiding members of our world won't help.
Over-reacting and turning our society into a police state will not stop terrorism but the additional restrictions may well destroy our economy. It is physically impossible be everywhere and stop every destructive act but if we had simply kept nineteen people from having access to the cockpit’s of four airliners, 6000 people would be alive today.
We are concentrating too much effort on a result without addressing the cause. We know each terrorist was trained to believe in the moral correctness of his cause, a cause that justifies death for us even if it costs his own life. We also know his trainers value their own lives more for they send their disciples out to do the killing.
Self-preservation dictates that we focus our anger on those leaders and tell them to change or they will die.
Respect for life must be reciprocal. Someone with no respect for your life is your enemy and inevitably it becomes you or him. We have no choice but to be brutal to those who choose to be brutal to us. Until they change or are eliminated, we can never be truly safe.
Garret Seinen

Earth day letter

On Saturday at 8:00 pm we will once again, be asked to participate in Earth Hour. We will be asked to turn out our lights and reduce our use of energy. The goal is to have everyone shrink their ‘carbon footprint’ for an hour. The reason we are urge to do this; because the ‘green’ lobbyists tell us CO2 is causing global warming and destroying the earth.

Alternatively, we are also being urged by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to celebrate Human Achievement Hour by leaving the lights on. They are saying, by doing nothing and living as we normally do, we are paying homage to the human mind, the basis of all the inventions and discoveries that make our lives better.

The “CO2-is-deadly-and-killing-the-earth” crowd are having a tough time right now. The last ten years have seen the earth cooling rather than warming as correctly predicted by Willie Soon Phd., who made the case that the sun is responsible for the earth’s temperature. He claims that sunspots drive the temperature and presently we are in a very low solar activity cycle.

Two weeks ago the Heartland Institute assembled some 73 climate scientists and held a conference to discuss the non-issue of global warming. These scientists agreed that capping CO2 is both costly for us and have no net benefit for the earth.

Space prohibits me from fully explaining how irrational and wrong the ‘goofy green’ movement has become, how truly anti-life their policies are.

For those people who want to go along with earth hour, I urge you to see if you can stick it out for a month rather than that one easy hour. A month without power will give a person a clear perspective on what life would be like if they had to live with less energy, the agenda the ‘greens’ are pushing.

Consider that by turning off the lights you will be renouncing human achievement, rejecting the mind and all the innovation we depend on for life. You will be rejecting the gifts from the minds of greatest inventive geniuses to have lived on this earth, such as Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, and Nicola Tesla, inventor of the power grid. You will instead, be claiming that it is better for all mankind to return to the stone age.

On Saturday night I’ll have the lights on to celebrate Human Achievement Hour. I’ll be pouring a glass and proposing toast, “to technology and the geniuses who share the products of their minds with us.” Join me if you like.

The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments

The Rational Capitalist: Houses Are Not Investments
If, as you imply, houses are not investments then my definition of investment differs from your. I can see the consumable rule applying to a hamburger but not to a 'good' that retains value in the market place. The house, while possibly of eroding value, retains value to other purchasers. In that sense, I see a house to be a money substitute, something that an individual may choose to invest time and energy into rather, especially when faced with fiat currency, than something akin to a Madoff investment scheme.
Would you grant that to a builder or a developer, a house is an investment? In the sense that an Ipod is the reason we build the factory, a capitalist will purchase the necessary 'bricks and mortar' to build a factory to produce a consumer good, anticipating a future return on the original investment. In that sense, I can see the house to be rather similar to a few crates of Ipods. Do you consider the investment characteristic to end when something is not able to produce futher goods?
If I choose to build a hotel with my 'bricks and motar' does the hotel become an investment? If that is the case, renting the house to someone should also recatigorize the house as an investment.
Confused.

budget advise

The Prime Minister, The Honorable Stephen Harper:

Please consider this, my voice as to what I consider to be appropriate actions for my government to take, actions to constructively address the current financial instability.

I support a free market solution to the problem. I hold the viewpoint that the country is far better off with less monetary interference by government. I see monetary intervention by the government as an attempt to counter the decisions already made by the market and that the intervention will only exacerbate the problems in the long run. The market, being the response to the accumulated decisions of every acting human being, remains beyond the control of the government and the best that could be done is to help people make wiser decisions.

Firstly, we need to agree that a viable economy is not an accident. The combined, rational, productive actions of a lot of people add up to make a sustainable economy. The current crisis developed because poor decisions were made. We have blamed investment banks and other financial players but these people made their decisions based on the rules that are in place in our society. The rules are made by our governments, mainly to channel the efforts of the citizens into directions that government officialdom deems to be best and when the results don’t measure up to the expectations, the rules are to blame, not the people.

I have yet to see government officials acknowledge any responsibility for making poor rules and that is a complete abdication of truth and responsibility. I cannot see the end of the fiscal debacle until the true causes are openly identified and addressed.

The inappropriate American administration response to the fiscal dilemma is a wasteful path I urge my government to not follow. The billions of dollars distributed in an irresponsible, cavalier attitude must be repaid by the common citizen in taxes or reduced purchasing power. It is criminal to see tin-pot dictatorship tactics taking place in what was once the greatest, freest country in history.

Clearly, the money system is in serious trouble. Governments all around the world have taken on an ever increasing burden of obligations in order to collect votes. Most people know, because there is insufficient revenue from taxation, governments have resorted to fiscal manipulation to make up the shortfall. The less informed people support the entitlement programs because they have been convinced someone else will supply the funds. The wisest people know better and make certain the bulk of their wealth is inaccessible to the government. If this wealth is ever to be available for investment in our country again there are a number of things the government must do.

The government must stop spending taxpayer’s money to prop up institutions and organizations the taxpayer will not fund voluntarily. By that I mean everything from the CBC through to Bombardier. That also includes any bailout for the auto industry.

The government must reduce the number of restrictions it places on business activity. The recycling mandates and other useless environmental restrictions are both costly and discourage the development of resources. Investment discouraging rules drive mobile wealth out of the country.

The government must stabilize the value of our currency. The erratic float of our dollar for the past year has shown us just how unhealthy the investment climate has become. Rational business decisions are impossible without financial and regulatory stability. I realize the Canadian dollar is rather a small time player in the world of currency but I believe that the government is not without power to stabilize our own dollar. Below is a suggestion made by Walter Williams, economic professor, George Mason University, that, if implemented would serve as a solid start.

“ It is not wise for us to permit a few people on the Federal Reserve Board to have life and death power over our economy. My recommendation for reducing some of that power is to repeal legal tender laws and eliminate all taxes on gold, silver and platinum transactions. That way there would be money substitutes and the government money monopoly would be reduced and hence the ability to tax — some people would say steals from — us through inflation.”

Clearly, if we are to retain an affluent society, something must be done to repair the world’s financial system, something beyond the scope of this letter. As a member of the G7, Canada has a voice and I would urge the government to consider the work of Judy Shelton, documented in Money Meltdown, as a thoughtful starting point for a return to financial sanity.

The paper dollars printed by the government are IOU’s on the goods and service offered for sale in this country. The people who produce those goods and services are the only people entitled to hold those dollars, the rest are counterfeit claims to goods and services that have not been earned. If we are to consider the long term viability of Canada, the inflated printing of money must stop and all distributed entitlements must be financed out of taxes. The budgets must balance.

The role of government needs to be redefined. The present mind-set, that the purpose of government is to redistribute the wealth of the land into the hand of all who need it, is wrong and impossible to sustain. The government must provide an atmosphere of trust that investments will be honoured, physical force and fraud will be punished and promise to let the peaceful citizens decide for themselves, how they choose to spend their lives.

The best role is for the government to thoroughly review all the restrictions that have been imposed on the activities of the citizens of this country. By rationalizing laws, a wealth of funding that is now absorbed in the court system could be better employed for economic activity to enrich the lives of people presently defending themselves from bad laws. The various human right commissions come immediately to mind.

I am aware that my suggestions do not coincide with the strident voices urging the government to spend its way out of the financial quagmire but anyone prepared to think, knows the way out of a debt crisis is not by taking on ever more debt. I believe a clear appeal to the thinking public can overcome all the irrational arguments in favour of further destruction of the wealth of our country.



Gary Seinen, seine44@gmail.com

conrad black

The Editor:

On this day, the tenth anniversary of Conrad Black offspring, The National Post, I’m remembering the man’s current ordeal and I’d like share my thoughts, if not with the NP readership, at least with the editorial board.

I wonder if, when some three years ago those disgruntled Hollinger shareholders who asked the courts to help them get more money, had any idea of the events they would set in motion. And when the courts deemed Conrad Black’s management team to be evil and removed control from the majority owners, were these shareholders rubbing their hands in anticipation of huge profits now that the evil Conrad Black couldn’t get any more non compete payments? I wonder if those same shareholders now have any second thoughts about the wisdom of bring charges against Conrad Black, especially after seeing what kind of people the courts appointed to temporarily ‘mismanage’ the company. Its become rather easy to see that much of what has transpired since the Black management team was removed has not been of any benefit to the people who originally thought they were being short-changed.

Its also become obvious that the legal industry, both the court appointed directors and the other representatives from the legal system, have been very successful in filling their own wallets while emptying those of the shareholders and Conrad Black’s and making sure that very little actual justice was done.

Now, after confiscating as much of Conrad Black’s assets are they were able to, probably with the intent of limiting his ability to defend himself, the courts have sentenced him to serve 6 ½ years in prison for failing to share non compete payments with those envious Hollinger shareholders. So does that vindicate the launching of the lawsuit by Hollinger shareholders? Is justice being served by upholding their claim and penalizing Conrad Black?

I personally believe we have before us one of the most glaring examples of a legal industry completely out of touch with justice. The proof of this to be found in looking at the value of Hollinger stock since the courts took over. When Conrad Black was removed from control, the stock’s value plummeted. With this in mind, it becomes easy to see how the individuals that choose to buy any news publishing assets from Conrad Black would pay to keep him from re-entering as a competitor. It has always been obvious that non compete promises only needed to be extracted from one individual, Conrad Black, not from other Hollinger shareholders, so why should the undeserving get paid?

In the competitive world of newspaper publishing, the Black controlled Hollinger was considered the third largest newspaper chain in the world, a far cry from its insignificant status today. Clearly, no investors can be found who see the court-appointed opportunistic directors or the envy-riddled Hollinger shareholders as having any competence in the newspaper publishing field. I’m sure that if any members of that forlorn group, suggested they were prepared to publish anything, the competitors would laugh hysterically.

Despite the above, some twelve jurors considering that shareholders of Hollinger do have a legitimate claim to remuneration from the non-compete payments made to Conrad Black. Truth be told, even the company share values were based on Mr. Black’s ability to make newspapers profitable. Its easy to see that the financial community doesn’t agree with the jury and considers the remnants of Hollinger to be of rather insignificant value as compared to it worth before Mr. Black disappeared from the board of directors .

I cannot think of a more clear example, showing explicitly what ratio of value a good CEO has to a company in relation to the shareholders who just put up a little money. ‘Riding on the shoulders of giants’ comes to mind as an apt description.

But what of the legal system that laid the charges and encouraged a group of reason-challenged jurors to bring forth a guilty charge on Conrad Black? Is there no one to sit in judgment of the real thieves, the group of people who deliberately destroyed Conrad Black and in doing so, successfully destroyed the company and squandered the shareholder’s assets, all the while handsomely rewarding themselves, the huge tax-collector financed legal industry with the clout to impoverish anyone?

At this stage of the fiasco, I’d say the shareholders got what they deserved and only Conrad Black is paying any penalty. If the judge had sought to help the shareholders while penalizing Mr. Black, she’d have ignored giving jail time. She’d have ordered Conrad Black to manage Hollinger for the five years for a token salary of possibly a dollar a year, while only retaining his own shares and the profits from them. I’d say that’s probably the only way Hollinger shareholders would ever have gotten a financial return on their soured investment.

When he is released, Conrad Black will be some seventy years old and, thanks to Jean Cretien, without Canadian citizenship. If we want to do something for the man that started this paper, the only Canadian paper with which I have a good deal of agreement, each of us can lobby this government as hard as possible, to reinstate Conrad Black’s citizenship. We couldn’t add a better citizen to this country.

Gary Seinen