Walter Williams defines "social justice"

Walter Edward Williams (31/3/36 - 1/12/20 was an American economist, commentator, and academic. He was the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, a syndicated columnist, and author. Mr Williams held classical liberal and libertarian views, and wrote frequently for Townhall and Jewish World Review. He was also a popular guest host of The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Here's what Walter Williams had to say about "social justice".

In case you didn't notice, Walter Williams was black. Surprised? Why?

VIDEO: Dave Rubin interviews the next prime minister of Canada (?)

Dave Rubin is a star interviewer on the Internet, especially popular among millennials, according to one of my kids, who is one -- a millennial, I mean. Hundreds of thousands of conservatives and libertarians watch his show. On his show this week, he interviewed Maxime Bernier, a member of the Canadian parliament and leader of the newly created (and now officially recognized) People's Party of Canada.

In this one-hour interview, "Mad Max" and Dave discuss the state of Canadian politics, leading his new party ‘The People’s Party of Canada,’ why he disagrees with Justin Trudeau, his views on immigration in Canada, political correctness, the difference between libertarianism and conservatism, and much more.



Dear frostback readers, can you imagine any of the "mainstream party" leaders -- Andrew Scheer, Justin Trudeau, or Jagmeet Singh -- appearing on this show? They wouldn't and couldn't, because they would be unable to answer Dave's questions. All they could do would be to repeat their usual meaningless talking points. M Bernier is willing and able to dig down into the issues, particularly the economic challenges, facing Canada... and the USA... today. When he says, "The deficits of today are the taxes of tomorrow," he reminds me a bit of Ron Paul, actually. More power to him!

VIDEO: Why Ron Paul voted against Martin Luther King Day

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday in the USA, although not widely celebrated everywhere, including in my corner of the woods. The law proclaiming the holiday was passed by Congress in 1983. Dr Ron Paul was a member of the House of Representatives then. In this 21-minute video he explains why.

What the "Yellow Vests" want for France - good for us too?

Walt is waiting for reports from the City of Light [Light Brown? Ed.] as to what Emmanuel Macron, the Emperor [I warned you last time! Ed.] sorry, President of France, had to say to the nation in response to the fourth straight weekend of protests by the gilets jaunes (= Yellow Vests). See "'Yellow vest' protests spread to Belgium, Netherlands... even Canada!", WWW 8/12/18.

Without foreknowledge of the contents of his TV address, I am prepared to bet that he did not offer to resign. (Lifetime pct .990.) He would be no more inclined to do so than would have Louis XVI. We can only hope that he will meet the same fate. Off with his head! (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.) As for the grievance which sparked the demonstrations cum riots -- a threatened hike in taxes on gasoline and other fuel -- the Chief Surrender-Monkey has already caved on that one. The tax increase has now been "suspended until further notice".

Walt is also prepared to bet that whatever M Macron said he would do (or not do) in response to the protests will not be enough to satisfy the yellow vests. I know this because some person(s) purporting to speak for the yellow vests today issued a manifesto listing no fewer than 25 principles or reforms which they demand the government act on immediately for the good of the country. Here they are.

Yes, yes... I know that's not easy to read. I suggest saving it, then using the magnifier (the icon of the little magnifying glass) in your viewer to blow up [careful. Ed.] the image and focus on whatever parts of the manifesto you want to study. I also know that most of our readers don't speak French, so here's a summary of the points which are of most interest to me.

Part I - Economy/Work - A lot of unrealistic, quasi-socialist stuff here

1. Taxes to be capped constitutionally at no more than 25%
4. Massive construction projects to house 5 million homeless
5. Break up the "too-big-to-fail" banks and separate regular banking from investment banking. Wait till (((Goldman Sachs))) reads that one!

Part II - Politics - This is where the best stuff is -- much food for thought in the AABC countries as well as France

7. Rewrite the constitution to protect the interests of the people, including binding referenda to give the people control of government
8. Prohibit lobby groups and (((vested interests))) from political decision-making. That would include things like PACs
11. Immediate cessation of privatization, and the renationalization of public assets. Statists, these people, not much in favour of private enterprise. Bring back Air France?
13. Take ideology out of education and end "destructive education techniques". Walt's friends at PAFE will like this one.
14. Quadruple the budget for law and order. Put time-limits on judicial procedures. Make the justice system accessible to all.
15. Break up media monopolies and end their interference in politics. Make media accessible to citizens and guarantee a plurality of opinions. End editorial propaganda. Gotta love-love-love this one, as well as the next one...
16. Guarantee citizens' liberty by prohibiting completely any interference by the state in private citizens' decisions concerning education, health and family matters.

Part III - Health/Environment - This is for the eco-weenies, except, oddly for...

21. Reindustrialize France, thereby reducing imports and thus pollution. More thought needed here.

Part IV - Foreign Affairs - The one-worlders have it wrong. And President Trump won't like this either.

22. Get out of NATO, and end France's participation in foreign wars of aggression. As Walt has been saying for years, we have no dog in Middle East fight.
23. Cease pillaging and interfering, politically and militarily, in "Francafrique". Immediately repatriate all French soldiers. "Francafrique" includes places like Mali where not just the French but Canadians and other NATO troops are busy keeping the non-existent peace; see point 22.
24. "Hinder" the influx of migrants who cannot be accommodated or integrated. The majority of Americans, Australians, Brits and Canadians would surely agree with the majority of Frenchmen on that one!

The Yellow Vest Manifesto -- especially Parts II and IV -- seems to me like a good basis for a libertarian-populist election platform. There isn't one country in Europe or North America where the ideas expressed wouldn't find substantial support. I have just received from Agent 3 the platform of the newly-formed People's Party of Canada, and will be going through it line by line to see how it aligns with the Manifesto. Good luck to the PPC, and to the Yellow Vests! I'm with you!

Ron Paul to visit Canada, with some advice

"Big Ideas for Conservatives" is the title of a yak-fest to be held in Ottawa, Canada later this week. The sponsor is the Manning Centre for Building Democracy: Presto Manning, Prop. Mr. Manning was the founder and one-time leader of Canada's Reform Party, the conservative movement that later got hijacked by "Call me Steve" Harper.

Walt may just strap on the snowshoes and head for the world's second-coldest capital* for the conference, since the line-up of speakers includes some real conservatives, including Walt's favourite libertarian, Ron Paul.

If the weather forecast looks iffy, Walt may have to be content with rereading the interview given by Dr. Paul to Paul Koring of the Globe and Mail. [That would be a "Paul-to-Paul" interview, eh. Ed.] [That's apauling! Walt.]

Dr. Paul thinks Canada and the USA could learn from each other and do more in concert to free the people from big government. For one thing, he says, the border should be more open, the way it used to be. As one who can recall hassle-free trips across the bridges and tunnels as recently as the `70s, Walt agrees.

Dr. Paul thinks too much is being made of the distinction between liberals and conservatives. Labels, including racial labels, are divisive, he told Mr. Koring. "To me the message of limited government is universal -- that is the message of liberty and why it is beneficial, not only to our personal lives as well as our economic lives."

You won't be surprised to learn that Ron Paul has not time for Canadian approaches to gun control and universal health care. He thinks Obamacare should be scrapped, and that health care should be left to the private sector because government doesn't do a very good job. "Obamacare is in chaos, prices are going up, there are shortages, doctors are quitting, so I don't see that government delivering a service or a good is of any benefit to the people."

Dr. Paul does think America could learn some budgeting prudence from north of the border. And he thinks NAFTA should be scrapped in favour of even freer trade. In all things, he says, let the people – and the market – decide.

Click here to read the Globe and Mail's longer version of the interview.  

* Ulan Bataar, Mongolia. You're welcome.

Obama won. What do we do now?

It would appear that America has voted for another four years of free drugs, forced abortion and compulsory homosexuality. [Over-egging the pudding a bit, aren't you? Ed.] Well, OK, maybe it's not quite as bad as that. Yet there's no denying that the libertarian message of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and an end to foreign entanglements has yet to be heeded by the majority of US voters.

What now, then? Who will lead the fight to get the American people to wake up to reality? Here's the reality!

• America is over $16 trillion in debt. The "official" unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
• The US government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
• Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads. Ron Paul says it’s not hard to see why. Here's part of his column "A New Beginning", published just three days after the election.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, "stimulus packages," and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties....
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better. They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for...our country.

But who will champion the cause of liberty? Ron Paul decided not to run as an Independent this year. He explains why in this interview.



Yet in the Republican primaries and the runup to the election, Mr. Paul achieved great success by changing the conversation and spreading the message of liberty. More and more people are waking up to the realization that the system is bankrupt and that the illusion of endless spending and easy money has come to an end.

But now Ron Paul is retiring from Congress. He's on his way back to Texas for good, of so he says. Last week he gave a farewell address from the House floor, repeating the small-government sermon he succeeded in injecting into the national debate. Here are two excerpts from his 48-minute address:

"If it's not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties."

Mr. Paul tells us that the responsibility for finding the solution to what ails America falls on each and every individual.

"The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change."

And here's the entire speech... all 48 minutes... well worth listening to in its entirety.

Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part I

The Canadian province of North Texas [Alberta, surely! Ed.] elected a new legislature on Monday. The result contains a lesson for American Republicans and Canadian Conservatives (big-C and small-c alike), the lesson being: don't go to extremes.

All you need to know about AB is that it's about as conservative a place as you can find north of the 49th parallel. Like TX, it's cattle country, and under the cattle is oil -- lots of it -- when enterprising multinational oilcos will sell to China if Obama holds up construction of the pipeline which should be shipping it south. The province is awash in oil money which it shares only reluctantly with poorer places like Ontario.

As Walt explained in "Campaign bust raises eyebrows in Alberta", Alberta is staunchly conservative, politically and socially. As of this spring, it had been ruled for 41 years, by a centre-right party oxymoronically called the Progressive Conservatives. This time they chose a new leader, Allison Redford, to front for the usual gang of old white men in conservative suits and white stetsons.

But the PCs were a tired lot, bereft of any ideas except to keep the oil flowing out (see above) and never ever have a provincial sales tax. There was a perceived need for change. Unfortunately the other two traditional parties, the Somewhat Liberal Party and the Not-so-new Democrats, didn't have a Chinaman's chance of electing a handful of MLA's, let alone forming a government.

So was born the Wildrose Party, a gang of even older white men in even more conservative suits and white stetsons -- cowboy boots too. They chose as their frontperson a slightly younger and more attractive white woman, Danielle Smith, whose campaign bus wrap drew attention to her assets until lamestream media cries of sexism forced a redesign.

The Wildrose Party's policies were a mixture of populism and conservatism, well to the right of the governing PCs. They promised to share the oil wealth, at least with the common people of Alberta. ("Prosperity certificates" had been tried during the Great Depression by the Social Government -- read "conservative" -- government of Bible Bill Aberhart, and found unconstitutional, but never mind.) There were also hints of a social conservative agenda on such matters as health care, abortion, "gay rights" etc etc.

In the run-up to the election, the pollsters, pundits and national media were loud in their predictions of a Wildrose landslide, followed by the return of Alberta to the dark ages of Social Credit and the Ku Klux Klan. The liberal Globe and Mail went so far as to endorse the PCs, which should have been the kiss of death since no one outside of Toronto and Ottawa pays any attention to the Glob.

True conservatives and libertarians in Alberta and the rest of Canada were peeing in their pants with excitement at the prospect of being freed from the tyranny of "red Tories" -- liberals in conservative suits. The Wildrosers themselves were starting to plan the "On to Ottawa!" campaign to get rid of the faux conservative Steve Harper and put a real right-winger in 24 Sussex Drive.

But... surprise, surprise... the pollsters and other "experts" got it wrong! The Regressive Convertibles (thank you, Allan Fotheringham) won, in a veritable landslide. Later today Walt will tell you why, and what this means for politics in Canada and the USA.

Masked American disses Obama maladministration

As readers who are hockey fans will know, Walt is an athletic supporter -- a fan of the greatest hockey team ever, the Montréal Canadiens. As such, I consider the Boston Bruins Enemy No. 1. Of the big, bad Bruins, Tim Thomas, pictured, is Number 1. OK, he's really No. 30, but you catch my drift, I'm sure.

Timmy has a deserved reputation for being more than a little unorthodox, on the ice. His awkward, goofy style goes against everything the goaltending coaches teach you, nowadays, but he's remarkably effective, especially against les Glorieux.

Now Timmy has demonstrated that he can be just as unorthodox -- politically incorrect -- off the ice as on. The team he backstopped to the Stanley Cup last spring were received yesterday at the White House, but the man in the mask wasn't there. He refused to go!

On his Facebook page, Thomas explained his absence thus.
I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

The lamestream media, led by the Boston Globe's Kevin Dupont and the Herald's Margery Eagan, jumped on Tim like ducks on a june bug. They accuse him of being self-centred, immature, a Republican or -- even worse -- possibly a libertarian.

Seems to me the real "sin" of which Tim Thomas stands accused is speaking truth to power. Maybe he's a Republican, maybe not. What he's saying, as I read it, is that the US government as a whole is broken, so he has no time for the whole shower.

Right on, Tim! Al O'Bama has been a dreadful disappointment to the people who voted for him. He only has a chance of being re-elected because the opposition is so fragmented, and because the mass media are giving him a free ride because to do otherwise might seem racist.

Meanwhile, the voice of Joe Sixpack isn't being heard. So it's about time that someone spoke up. Good for you, Tim Thomas!

As for Dupont, Eagan and the rest of the east coast liberal press, it looks to Walt as if freedom of opinion and speech are secondary to political orthodoxy and the importance of election-year photo ops at the White House.

Let's hope that those Boston "journalists" don't ever get to run a sports team or a government. Imagine a parent telling a child "Just go along and be nice." Or "Pretend everything's fine." Or "Go along for the greater good and you'll be able to keep people's esteem."

St. Thomas More said (according to Robert Bolt), "When we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

As I said, I'm not a Bruins fan. And I'm no friend of Tim Thomas when he's playing against "my team". But I like people who stand up for what they believe in, and I don't like those who don't.

Footnote from Ed.: A reader sent us a rude remark about this post, asking what in hell a Canadian would know about US government or politics. I've fixed the headline to make it clear that Tim Thomas is an American...the only one playing regularly for the Bruins.

Paul to make third party run?

OK, so the Mormon candidate won New Hampshire. Hardly news. That Mr. Romney won both Iowa and New Hampshire, becoming the first ever non-incumbent Republican to do so, is news. It's beginning to look as if he has the GOP nomination locked up.

However... Even the lamestream media can't ignore the fact that Romney’s margin of victory was narrower than polls predicted on the weekend days ago. And, much to the pundits' consternation, Walt's choice, libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, showed startling strength, winning 23% of all votes cast. A better-than-expected second place showing. Much better than expected.

John Huntsman -- the latest conservative flash in the pan -- Rick Santorum and Not-so-New Gingrich finished down the track.

What does this mean? If I can find a rabid right-winger in the woods behind my cabin, I'll place an immodest wager on Romney to win the Republican nomination. Lifetime pct .982.

I'm also about ready to bet that Ron Paul, if he makes a respectable showing in South Carolina, will stand as presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, or some variant thereof with a new brand name. Like "Restore America Party". "RAP". That would be cool -- appealing to the college kids, who, by the way, turned out in NH in large numbers to vote for Ron.

Walt told you first!

The tyranny of good intentions

I can hardly post a book review in advance, but I can tell you about a book I mean to read as soon as I can get my hands on it. Neil Reynolds, writing in the Globe and Mail, alerts us to a new book by Kylie Minogue which I've immediately entered on my "must read" list.

Dr. Minogue is a professor emeritus at the London School of Economics. [I think you mean Dr. Kenneth Minogue, not Kylie. Ed.] Oh. Yes... Well, it'll be an easy name for me to remember when I visit the library.

Nearly 50 years ago, (Reynolds writes), Dr. Minogue published The Liberal Mind, his classic study of the dominant philosophy of the 20th century: radical niceness.

Rooted in extreme liberal optimism and salvationist aspiration, this triumphant ideology (Prof. Minogue said) tenaciously advanced the notion that history requires the perfection of human society, that governments – in pursuit of this perfection – are obliged “to provide every man, woman, child and dog with the conditions of the good life.” Prof. Minogue ended with a warning: “A populace which hands its moral order over to governments, no matter how impeccable its reasons, will become dependent and slavish.”

I see strong parallels with Godfrey Hodgson's America in Our Time, recommended here several times this summer. There is no bibliography in Mr. Hodgson's 1976 work, but I wouldn't be surprised if he owes a debt to Dr. Minogue.

Now the good doctor has published what Reynolds calls "a remarkable sequel": The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life. He picks up where he left off, documenting the ways in which democracy requires strict obedience to the state -- and to the bureaucratic moral order that sustains it.

Boy, does that ever ring true. Sounds to me like a tome that should be perused, if not read cover to cover, by libertarians everywhere.

You can read the column by Neil Reynolds here.

New hope with a new party

Picking up where we left off a couple of hours ago...

Why, some will ask, is Walt (along with millions of others) so ticked off with Barry O'bama? If I don't like him, don't trust him, don't believe him, I must be a racist, right? No!

The disenchantment with President O (as in "zero") is not a racist thing. To suggest that is the typically arrogant and dismissive approach of the so-called "urban intelligentsia". Our disillusionment is based on the realization that O's "hope" message was a cynical and effective ploy to get elected.

Tea Party members aren't racist. They are merely libertarians who are sick and tired of the same old left-liberal "solutions" to the economic and social problems which the very same liberal elite has created.*

Has it occurred to these pious windbags that people are just sick and tired of being lorded over and taxed to death by a nanny state hell-bent (let us pray) on placating special interests, greasing every minority wheel that squeaks?

Do you want a gay pride parade? Fine. I don't care. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

Do you not like guns? Fine. Don't buy one. And don't run crying to Tim Horton's in search of a cop because you can't defend yourself.

Do you want to stone someone to death for adultery? Fine. Go cast the first stone in a Muslim theocracy where that's the law.

Not everyone who yells "Enough is enough!" is an unenlightened knuckle-dragger who likely beats his wife. More likely he's just a perfectly normal but damn angry white man (or woman) who's not going to take it any more!

If that describes you, I invite you to join my new party, which is destined for even greater things than the Tea Party.

Frankly, I thought the name "Tea Party" was kind of silly, so got thinking of some alternatives. "Libertarian Party" is already taken. You can look it up. So I thought of People's United People, but the abbreviation PUP is less than inspiring. People's Party and People's Union didn't work either.

So I am pleased to announce that all libertarians who have had enough and just want the government to leave them alone are welcome to join the Fed Up Party, or FU for short.

Membership in the Fed Ups entitles you to tell the next pol who knocks on your door, "I'm going to give my vote to FU!" or "I've made my decision. FU!"

I'm pleased to announce as well that we already have our first candidate, the eminently electable John Noone. When you go to vote this fall, ask yourself...

Who will listen to the opinions of ordinary citizens? NOONE!

Who cares about the workers who pay the taxes for all these "services" and "programs"? NOONE!

Who will punish criminals, especially those guilty of breach of trust? NOONE!

Who will close the doors on bogus refugees and illegal aliens? NOONE!

Who will govern with honesty and integrity, in the best interests of our country? NOONE!

The choice is clear. Vote for Noone! FU! FU very much!

* Once again I commend to you Godfrey Hodgson's America In Our Time (1977, Vintage Books).

Are we liberal, conservative...or what?

Continuing with the theme of government intervention in our lives (see preceding post) let's turn to David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, July 19th.

Mr. Brooks poses the question of whether the politics of our time is predominantly liberal or conservative. His answer: neither. Read on.

When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era. It is not a liberal era — when government intervenes to seize wealth and power and distribute it to the have-nots. It’s not a conservative era, when the governing class concedes that the world is too complicated to be managed from the center. It’s a progressive era, based on the faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.

This progressive era is being promulgated without much popular support. [My emphasis. Walt.] It’s being led by a large class of educated professionals, who have been trained to do technocratic analysis, who believe that more analysis and rule-writing is the solution to social breakdowns, and who have constructed ever-expanding networks of offices, schools and contracts.

Already this effort is generating a fierce, almost culture-war-style backlash. It is generating a backlash among people who do not have faith in Washington, who do not have faith that trained experts have superior abilities to organize society, who do not believe national rules can successfully contend with the intricacies of local contexts and cultures.

The "backlash" of which Mr. Brooks speaks is the Tea Party movement, which to my mind is nothing more or less than the latest expression of libertarianism.

Sadly, those who espouse and preach libertarianism are now demonized as being "anti-progressive". It is implied, if not stated outright, by the liberal media that we who would reduce the intrusion of government in our lives are hopeless curmudgeons.

We are intent, the enlightened and progressive "thinkers" say, on returning the West to the dark ages, before we had the benefits of globalization, multiculturalism, secular humanism and all the other universally accepted ideologies unleashed on us in the hippy-dippy 60s. (See Walt, passim.)

To all the libertarians and curmudgeons out there, Walt says, wear your epithet proudly and proclaim your contempt for "progress" loudly. I'm pullin' for ya.

The biggest bully of all

Libertarian Gerry Nicholls has a great op-ed piece in some of the smaller Canadian newspapers today. It's the kind of thing you wouldn't see in the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star, voices of the progressive urban elite. So, in case you missed it, let me quote some thoughts on the government's role in our lives.

The government is a bully.

The government is always pushing us around.

It bosses us with rules and regulations that tell us where we can smoke, what we can eat and what kind of light bulbs we can put in our homes.

It passes ridiculous laws to intimidate gun owners and marijuana smokers.

It forces us to give up nearly half our income in the form of taxes so it can finance things like artificial lakes in downtown Toronto and chauffeur-driven limousines for federal cabinet ministers.

It even tries to control what we can think and say through the so-called Human Rights Commissions.

In short, the government uses coercion to manage just about every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave.

Plus, let's not forget the government also has the power to put people in jail.

Now that's what I call bullying.

And every time the government bullies its citizens, every time it seeks to restrict our behaviour or control our actions, or steal our private property, it also takes away our liberty.

That should scare all of us. Freedom is a precious commodity in this world; it should be protected and preserved.

Strong stuff. I agree with it. In fact, I love it! But am I the only one?

In one of his Globe and Mail columns recently, John Ibbitson said he doubted that there was much support in Canada for a Tea Party, because Canadians are just too moderate, polite and progressive. On the contrary, I think Mr. Nicholls' remarks will resonate with many more Canadians than Mr. Ibbotson has readers.

Gerry Nicholls has written a book, Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper, Me and the NCC. Click here to find out where to buy it, and read more libertarian common sense. Tell `em Walt sent ya.