I was exchanging some words with a friend, after I had mentioned an article. He suggested that the article “could easily be Israeli propaganda to legitimize a new attack on Gaza.” I tried to explain that such information seemed contrary to Israeli interests — that if Israel wants to publish propaganda, it should write something that is more advantageous to itself –, that the newspaper that Haaretz used as a source was owned by a Saudi who has been accused of funding Hamas and seems quite unlikely to start publishing Israeli propaganda, and that the source that this latter paper used seemed credible and, if it was a lie, could easily have been denied by Hamas. Then the conversation became about whether Haaretz was trust-worthy. This lead me to write a letter that was much longer than our previous exchanges and is perhaps more suited to this website than through the medium we were using:

Haaretz is a well-respected Israeli newspaper which I have been reading for some time. I can tell you that, especially in contrast to other voices coming from Israel, it is favourable to Palestinian interests, though it does not, of course, neglect Israeli interests. Just read about Gideon Levy, who is an editor for Haaretz that regularly publishes pro-Palestinian articles. Haaretz does, however, publish a diversity of view points, so there will be one extreme with Gideon Levy, but also a variety of op-ed articles that speak in favour of Israel’s interests. To suggest that it is a mouthpiece for the Israeli government to publish propaganda, however, seems like no more than ignorance as to what the paper actually publishes.
Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I have seen both teachers and books describe neoliberalism as an ideology in “opposition to government intervention in the economy”*. Its adherents tend to be vilified as zealous believers in the invisible hand and this definition of neoliberalism is then used in a straw man argument, with neoliberalism clearly shown as false due to the many examples of how the invisible hand does not always guide private interests in favor of the common good.

Any just definition of “neoliberalism” must be compatible with Milton Friedman’s ideas, since, as far as I can tell, he has been the one most widely described as a neoliberal, even though he did not identify as one (as few if any “neoliberals” do). Thus, we should probably consider what he had to say about government intervention in the economy:

“[T]here are only three major grounds on which government intervention is to be justified. One is “natural monopoly” or similar market imperfection which makes effective competition (and therefore thoroughly voluntary exchange) impossible. A second is the existence of substantial “neighborhood effects,” i.e., the action of one individual imposes significant costs on other individuals for which it is not feasible to make him compensate them or yields significant gains to them for which it is not feasible to make them compensate him–circumstances that again make voluntary exchange impossible. The third derives from an ambiguity in the ultimate objective rather than from the difficulty of achieving it by voluntary exchange, namely, paternalistic concern for children and other irresponsible individuals.”

-Milton Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education.”<http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm>

Even if we assume that these are the only conditions under which government intervention is to be justified, it is possible to allow a great variety of interventions, including tobacco taxes (the “paternal concern” clause), radical environmental laws (due to neighborhood effects), public companies (in cases of natural monopolies) and so forth — all while respecting the limits of government intervention as stated by the best known “neoliberal”. Thus, it seems ridiculous to claim that neoliberals are opposed to government intervention in the economy.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I tend to believe that philosophical differences boil down to differences in terms of values, of which none is better than the other since they are essentially assumptions about the nature of our world. The conflict between primitivism and liberalism serves as a fine example:

When I speak as a liberal, one of the most wonderful things about this world is the number of choices we have. In this modern world, our economy is so advanced that millions of people can live within the same, relatively small, area. These technological advances are the natural product of a liberal economy and one of the advantages is that I, as an individual, have access to so many different people that I can easily find specific types of people and thus associate with a human subculture of my choice. This allows me more freedom to shape my life how I want it to be shaped. Yes, we are all limited by external factors, some of which are imposed by our society, some of which are imposed by reality, but, in the end, we have greater control over our lives than we have ever had. We are not limited to a few sources of food, to the people in our village and to “survival” as our main job.

However, this perspective conflicts with another: yes, it is true that we can now shape our social surroundings with more ease than before, but this may destroy the natural balance of personalities that we may find in villages. In the past, just like we do not choose our family today, we did not choose anything about our social surroundings. We were born in a random village and that’s where we grew up and died. Even nomads would usually remain with the same group of humans. What happens in a modern, liberal society is that — if I am to use such crude language to describe people — “intelligent” people will leave the “village” to form a subculture with like-minded people, leaving the village without “intelligent” people. The same goes for different personality types. Thus, while this may be of benefit to “intelligent” people who crave interactions of a certain level, the village gets deprived of its share of “intelligent” people. The same goes for its natural chiefs, natural shamans, natural strongmen etc and it is, in the end, wholly abandoned as we are all stratified by liberalism and its efficiency. People who work in factories tend to frequent people who work at jobs of a similar nature. The same goes for people who work in law, in the arts, in farming and so forth.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening between people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Let’s consider these words by Winston Churchill:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would not extend this to the economic systems of capitalism and socialism, but still, it holds a certain truth:

Something that is too often ignored is the value of wealth inequalities within human societies, at least at some point in their histories. It does cause certain problems that we should most definitely be aware of, but it also offers certain advantages that could not be gained without it and progress — by any definition I am aware of — would never have been possible without relying on wealth inequalities.

For example, we can consider Socrates, who is often used as the symbol of Western philosophy. We are told that he was an eccentric man who would walk around Athens and ask men difficult questions that might otherwise seem simple. We are all familiar with the concept of “justice”, for example, but if someone came to you, asking what “justice” was, could you really explain it in an intelligible manner?

Now, the reason that Socrates could spend his free time doing such things was precisely due to wealth inequalities. Athens was only a great place to live for the minority of its population — the rest were slaves. We can speak of equality all we want, but the choice we must make here is between a society where everyone is forced to spend all their free time working to survive or a society where these people share the burden of supporting a minority class of people, who, for mostly arbitrary reasons (such as the achievements of their ancestors), do not need to work much to ensure their survival. Most of this class, like most humans, are trivial creatures dedicated to no more than the pursuit of worldly pleasures. However, in this class, again like in the rest of humanity, there will be, by chance, some who will have the potential to innovate in the realm of art and philosophy. Thanks to wealth inequalities, these people will have been taught to write and read, they will have access to books and they will have plenty of free time, all of which can simply not be offered to every individual within a society with little technology.

Today, thanks to technological advances, we can afford to provide this opportunity to everyone. We still need to work, but it is not a burden so heavy that we have no time to educate ourselves or refine our art. However, these technological advances were in large part brought to us by men who benefited from wealth inequalities, especially once we look further back in our history.

It no longer makes sense for us to have a system of entrenched wealth inequalities, but in the past it did and this is something that we should keep in mind when looking at history as well as our modern world.

Such ideas might seem blasphemous, like spit upon the idealism that unites both liberal and socialist, but, ultimately, what must reign is what must work. Ideologies are useful tools in forming a coherent society, but attempts to define a single true ideology that is effective and moral for all cultures through all periods of time is, at best, an achievement that we are no closer to than the theory of everything in physics. The truth seems to be that such despicable things (to us, Westerners) as child labour and entrenched wealth inequalities do have a perfectly valid functions in certain contexts, which also happen to be the contexts where they arise. As for when they are no longer needed, well: it is there that the fight must begin, and, hopefully, end.

- Dussault

There are people who worry about how our world has become, how trivial we have become. So many hours are spent in front of the television, watching hollow comedies, hollow dramas and hollow action. People spend on clothes, beauty products and drugs. Few people have creativity to share in science, philosophy and art. Comparisons are made to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where Ford is worshipped and humans have become little more than machines on an assembly line, created to be happy until they must be recycled.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Here is a man that has chosen to take his wife’s last-name. I understand his reasoning. He felt a personal want to share family names with his wife, but did not want to make her change her last name, since men often expect this on the part of women and some believe this to be unfair. Anyways, his wife did not want to changer her last name, and if he was the one who wanted them to share a last name, then he was the one who should make the sacrifice of changing his name. This seems perfectly sound.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

McGill University is a high-ranking one of international prestige. It also happens to be a public University with a relatively low budget and costs little even to foreign students, as compared to other similar ranking Universities. I see it as a sign of success and efficiency in the public University sector.

However, let us not forget the successes of the private University sector. As any quick glance at University rankings will reveal, the United States dominates the field. Of course, it has ten times the population of Canada, something that has to be considered. But Canada has three Universities in the top hundred, in contrast to the United State’s fifty-nine, rather than the thirty that would seem proportional.

I’ve often heard people complain that, though it is true that the United States is renown for its Universities, that they are far too expensive for the common family to afford. Of course, Harvard does not filter its students on merit alone (though it still offers many ways for the most brilliant students of this world to get in, regardless of their economic status). But on the whole, it seems that Universities are perfectly accessible:
Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Once again, how Muslim women dress has been made into something worthy of public concern. This time, it was Sarkozy:

The problem with the burqa is not a religious problem. It’s a problem of liberty and of the dignity of women. It is not a religious sign, it is a sign of subservience, it is a sign of lowering.

I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. We can not accept in our country women trapped behind a fence, cut off from social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea that we have of the dignity of women.

(click here for full transcript and video in French)

Beautifully said, I must say, but it is all meaningless.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

With the Second World War, we witnessed the end of a cruel and oppressive regime, of the Asian equivalent to the Nazis. They had lost all the territories they had conquered — China, Korea, French Indo-China,  Thailand, Burma, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia etc –, they were isolated back on the Japanese archipelago, without a hope of winning the war; Japan was on its knees.

The United States had finished and tested nuclear weapons, leaving them with a new tool to consider. Rather than accept the costs of a land invasion on Japan, which had refused to surrender, it was decided that nuclear weapons should be used, so as to force them into an unconditional surrender.

Was it necessary to use nuclear weapons on them? No, it was not, but few things in life are necessary; rather than focus on necessity, we should look at what was for the best.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

The dear old Queen of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and so many other countries: just what is she good for? Though, in my experience, few people care about her either way, there are those who see in the monarchy a powerful symbol. That is, a powerful symbol of injustice, of oppression, of an archaic system that goes against the very foundations of democracy and liberty. Or of stability, culture and history; an important part of who we are, of the Canadian identity.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I’m troubled.

First, Obama decided that those responsible for torture during the Bush administration should not be charged. I’m still not sure what to think of this, but I think that the safest choice — in terms of not wrongly punishing people — is to forgive those responsible for torture now that the movement to end the use of torture by the United States is in swing. To do otherwise would seem like retroactive law in practice, even though this may not be true technically.

However, I think that things have now gone too far. Obama seems to have decided that the public should be shielded from evidence of torture. The reason for this is that it would fuel “anti-Americanism” and lead to more violence. And it probably would, but is this enough of a reason?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

(recommended Artist: Karsh Kale – Distance)

REMINDER: I use “liberal” in the original sense of the term, so those who identify liberalism as “the left” — a mistake common in the United States and English Canada — should perhaps see it as being roughly (roughly) equivalent to “libertarianism” or “classical liberalism”. Read more about this detailhere (though I see liberalism a bit differently than the author of that page).

Reminder #2: This is a bit of a rant.

I have an issue with people who spout ideological garbage about individual rights and refuse to go further than that when looking at issues. Individual rights goes just as much for the person who wants to own a pit bull as the person wanting to paint his house pink; as the person wanting grow opium poppy in his backyard as the person wanting to dress as he wants; as the person wanting to masturbate on his front lawn as the person who wants to drive without a seatbelt; as the person who wants to have an abortion as the person who wants to own a gun; as the person who wants to live in a shaky house as the person who wants to let his grass grow tall.

It is extremely easy to argue in favour of each of these cases from an “individual liberty”, “personality responsibility” standpoint; such liberalism, stripped down to its core, makes individuals the sole agents responsible for their what they do to themselves and on their properties; and even, to a certain extent, on public property (such as dressing as one wants and perhaps such as walking naked in public).

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

(Recommended Artist: Sage Francis – Crack Pipes)

Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reily: comedy goldmines.

Journalism plays a key role in our society and is essential for democracy to function as intended. If the media is divided into political factions, arrogant and opinionated, then so will society. But if the media is careful not to offend anyone with “opinions”, then it will be difficult for people to explore different ideas and push towards progress. And if the media pursues the profit margin with too much zeal, then we are more at risk of relying on false information and cheap opinions, and the information we may come across may become more base. The quality of the news media is tied to the quality of our democracy, and this is why we must be be much more careful in considering how it works and where it may go wrong then when we look at other markets.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

(Recommended Artist: Nujabes – Reflection Eternal)

Many of those products we buy serve the “unnecessary” purpose of maintaining or modifying our persona, or public image. This might be a new watch, a cell phone with more features than necessary, a high performance car or a shirt with a little logo that’s worth far more than the shirt itself.

Is there something wrong with this? Perhaps, but I suspect that what drives people to engage in such “irrational” behaviour is inherent to human nature. Sure, the thought of spending 400$ on pants seems ridiculous to me, but this is only because a) there are other things I want to buy b) my budget may be more limited than others.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text