In its first paper since Stephen Poloz took over, the BoC said, “if the upcoming supply of units is not absorbed by demand as they are completed over the next 12 to 30 months, the supply-demand discrepancy would become more apparent, increasing the risk of an abrupt correction in prices and residential construction activity… any correction in condominium prices could spread to other segments of the housing market as buyers and sellers adjust their expectations.”

This process, admits the Bank, would “shatter” consumer confidence and cause a drop in spending. This, of course, would lead to deteriorating credit conditions and turn Canada’s inflationary boom into a  recessionary bust.

A Bank of Montreal economist, Robert Kavcic, had this to say: “There are about 50,000 units under construction right now … and the demand is probably not going to be there to absorb that, so it’s a risk.” Kavcic recommends renting.

Nevertheless, the Bank of Canada insists that the housing market can still experience a soft-landing – if interest rates remain low. But Poloz has suggested that the long-term dangers of low interest rates may creep up even when the system appears to be working in the short-run.

New Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz is no Henry Hazlitt. If Poloz really understood the long-term risks of artificially low interest rates, it’s likely he never would have gotten the job in the first place. It looks as if Poloz and the BoC are just covering their own asses for the financial calamity that’s about to rain down on this country. While mainstream opinion might scapegoat Harper’s government, Chartered Banks, indebted consumers, or real estate agents – all these targets miss the mark when the Bank of Canada is excluded from one’s analysis.

Caleb McMillan is an autodidact and blogger living in Canmore, Alberta. He blogs at TANSTAAFL CANADA!

To be called a “monger” is obviously not a compliment. Austrian economists have been among those arguing that Canada’s housing market is currently in an unsustainable boom. Supporting this view is the price-to- rent ratio. According to calculations of The Economist magazine earlier this year, that ratio is 78% above the long-term (since 1975) average in Canada. Another indicator is the price-to-disposable income ratio. The Economist magazine notes that this measure was 34% above the historical norm. Granted, this is not as elevated as the price-to-rent ratio, but Canada has the second most overpriced housing market in the world by this indicator, only a single percentage point behind France.  Evidently, these valuation metrics do not impress Mr. Porter, as he thinks that the fact that house prices have not come down so far casts serious doubt on the bubble advocates.

By this logic, however, those Austrian economists who were correctly describing the US housing sector as a bubble in 2004 and 2005 ought to have been doubted and mocked back then. It is extremely difficult, nay impossible, to predict economic turning points. This is especially the case with asset price booms which, historically, have demonstrated a way of persisting and catapulting far beyond valuation levels that calm and astute observers deemed reasonable. No sober Austrian economist will tell you when exactly the Canadian housing boom will end. They will tell you that most of the signs are pointing to an unsustainable upward trend and that, at least once certain conditions kick in, a correction of some kind will eventually take place.

What are those conditions? Well, let’s diagnose why real estate prices have risen so much in the first place.  The answer is the easy money policy of the Bank of Canada, currently reflected in its benchmark interest rate of 1%.  It’s been there for the last three years. Before that, it was at 0.25%. Such low rates make investing in capital goods — that is, resources that promise future benefits like housing — artificially attractive. It suggests that the demand for such future items will be higher than will actually end up being the case. Before this moment of truth comes, though, prices are apt to accelerate  for quite awhile as everyone invests in the capital asset, in this case housing.

Given this diagnosis, the bubble will pop once one, or a combination, of two things occur. Either (1) it becomes clear to sufficient players in the market that the investments made were a mistake; or (2) the central bank removes the easy money fuel by raising interest rates. In housing, the first scenario is liable to take an exceedingly long time to be realized since everyone needs a place to live. People must either rent or own a dwelling. But as the ownership ratio is typically well below 100%, there is a lot of room for people to shift into buying a house as long as interest rates are kept low enough to make monthly mortgage payments competitive against rents.

And this means that the second scenario will have to occur for Canada’s housing boom to implode. It will do so when the Bank of Canada eventually tightens monetary policy. It will, of course hope to engineer a “soft landing” But if the historical record of such efforts is any guide, our central bank will have a hard time executing such a landing.

Tomas Salamanca is a Canadian Scholar.

The very existence of tax havens demonstrates a fundamental axiom of economics, namely that people respond to incentives. When you threaten to take people’s money away from them, they quite reasonably try to find a way to hold on to it. The problem is there is a large amount of waste and inefficiency associated with efforts to circumvent enforcement. Every dollar spent on lawyers and acounts who come up with clever ways to hide assets overseas is a dollar that could be spent on something productive.

Likewise, every dollar the government spends in its efforts to prevent cheating, whether it be in terms of prevention, detection or enforcement, is one that could be better used elsewhere.

Doubtless, efforts to crack down on tax havens will involve tighter regulations, more oversight and more spending, but this only exacerbates the problem. The harder the government works to prevent tax evasion, the harder people will have to work to evade tax, and the more waste there will be. It doesn’t matter how much pressure is exerted, there will always be an escape path for those willing to find it.

This whole approach is therefore misguided. Tax evasion cannot be realistically prevented when there is so much money at stake, and at some point the effort becomes more costly than the reward. Canada, perhaps understanding this at least in part, has shown great reluctance to take aggressive measures against tax havens, but total inaction here is not really the best strategy for improving the country’s economic situation.

A far better way to reduce these inefficiencies, and in the process improve the economy, would be for the G8 nations to adopt simpler, fairer tax codes that are less easy to exploit and provide less incentive to try. Then, all that wasted money formerly devoted to finding loopholes in the tax code could be instead invested in new technologies, scientific research, business ventures and other productive activities that would improve life for all of us. And as wealth increases on a large scale, governments would find that their revenue would not be as reduced as they might have imagined, even in the face of lower rates.

Tax havens are an inevitable symptom of the disease of overly complex, punitive tax codes that make people feel cheated out of their own money. Treating the symptom with oppressive regulations will not cure the disease, and in the long run will only make things worse for the patient – us.

Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.

Reprinted from Vice Magazine

On Friday, the world found out about PRISM: a secret tool developed by the United States’ National Security Agency that has been used, since 2007, to directly tap into the servers of companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple without the permission of the corporations themselves. From what has been described by the Guardian and their source Edward Snowden, a former employee of the private security contractor Booz Allen, the NSA has been recording anything and everything they can through the capabilities of a massive surveillance net that is growing exponentially in size.

As Edward Snowden described to the Guardian in a video interview, from an undisclosed location in Hong Kong, anyone who is deemed suspicious by the NSA can be painted as a threat. With so much information being recorded, anyone who falls under the suspicion of the NSA can potentially be portrayed as a “wrongdoer” through archived recordings of their instant messages, phone records, emails, and online activities. If they want to attack you, they can, and the danger of innocent people being portrayed as threatening individuals is a real concern that people need to be discussing. And while this possibility is of little worry to the average citizen, to people like Edward Snowden or Wikileaks’ infamous military source Bradley Manning who have attempted to challenge the institutions of power, the consequences are very grave.

In Canada, some people may not feel too alarmed by the revelations that Edward Snowden has brought to the public eye. For one, this is the work of the US Government, not the Canadian government. But it is crucial to remember that the respective sovereignty of citizens on the internet is blurry at best.  For example, here is a map of where your communications go when you visit Facebook from, say, Toronto.

Click Here to Read the Rest of the Article

Patrick McGuire is managing editor of Vice Canada.

Sometimes one must see to believe, in this case believe just how massive the raw demand for the shiny, barbarous relic is in China during times of relative monetary stability (in this case the Dragon Boat Festival). Now assume runaway inflation as we saw in 2011 China, which may be unleashed by something as catalytic as the PBOC once again deciding to inject liquidity in its suffocating banking system and to revive growth in the stalling economy.

June 11, ten thousand people line up in front of a gold shop to buy gold. The buyers lined up during the three day Dragon Boat Festival.

Redmond is the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada.

It was assumed that this money ($126 per person) would be returned to its rightful owner – the individual taxpayer. But the mayor and city council of Calgary have other plans. They’d like to keep everybody’s money and spend it on something else. Perhaps paying down a $3.2-billion debt or endless infrastructure construction? The ideas are endless and the Calgary Sun is outraged. They’ve launched a full scale attack on the city’s bureaucrats declaring 27 times in one editorial, “It’s not your money, give it back!”

If the Sun’ s editorials aren’t getting dangerously close to the notion that taxation is theft, then the letters they publish are certainly pushing the envelope. Consider, Ben Nielsen’s letter from June 8:

“It’s not about the $126. It’s about the principle of not letting Mayor Naheed Nenshi and his cohorts take our hard-earned dollars. I don’t care if I can only buy two cups of very expensive coffee, I don’t want Nenshi and others on council to appropriate this in the name of city need, when they can’t plan their way out of a Lego box…”

With the Sun adding, “it’s your money. Not the city’s.”

Taxation is obviously theft. How could it not be? Apologists insist that taxation is actually voluntarily because of the social contract. If the people of Calgary want to build a road, everyone – or at least the majority – assume to value it. If someone doesn’t contribute voluntarily, they are – according to the logic – neglecting their collective responsibility as inhabitants of the city. But value is subjective. It may argued that value is objective and ultimately the road is an extension of the city’s social contract. If the people of Calgary do indeed have a physical contract, or a charter or constitution that all residents have signed, then it is perfectly legal to punish or ostracise those refusing to pay into something they voluntarily agreed to. But as no resident of Calgary has this kind of relationship with the city council or provincial government, value is determined by the preferences of bureaucrats.

The social contract confuses the definition of a city. A city is a marketplace of individuals – it would be a grave mistake to arrogate a city its very own beliefs and values. To say that Calgary wants the money back is to say that the individual residents of the city of Calgary want the city council to return them their money. It is completely absurd to forcibly seize people’s wealth and call it a “voluntary” arrangement.

Tax revenue, some argue, is a “social benefit.” But taxation implies a state and a state cannot calculate. Economic calculation requires sound pricing. Prices develop when people are free to act and exchange voluntarily. Prices act as an objective expression of the ever-changing values of all the market participants. Entrepreneurs compete for finite resources using this mechanism; prices steer them toward consumer satisfaction. Profit-motive is the true social benefit and the only rational way to allocate scarce resources. The state cannot use these methods because it taxes. Its decisions are ultimately arbitrary and in the long-run, destructive.

Evidently, the economic argument is invalid when democracy is in use. In a democracy, it is said, the act of voting makes government responsible to the people and thus taxation is truly voluntary vis-a-vis the voters. This is a major fallacy that needs little refute. Majority opinion cannot negate reality. There are social norms against theft which make civilization possible. It would frightening to live in a world where the social norm disregards theft. There would be no society to define the term “social norms.” The civilizing processes of exchange, specialization and the division of labour would never develop. It would be true anarchic chaos – certainly not a world where people are advanced enough to establish a centralized democratic state that finds a $52 million tax windfall.

But what about voting? Roderick T. Long brilliantly summed up the argument: “A government is an institution that says no one is allowed to produce law and order except me in this area and I will decide what kind of laws you will get, what kind of order you will get and how much you pay for it. If you don’t like it, well, you know, every four or six years you can petition for some change in the personnel of my company.”

Governments are essentially criminal organizations. Their legitimacy rests on an ideology that is preached in public schools and reinforced in the media. While the Calgary Sun has come incredibly close to labelling taxation as theft, they have yet to cross the line. Perhaps, as Rothbard pointed out, this is because the “intellectuals” that promote the state also benefit from its existence. SunMedia’s conglomerate is Quebecor, a communications corporation that receives government subsidies. It’s also rumoured that Peter Mansbridge, Ezra Levant and Tom Mulcair actually enjoy each others company and often go out together for lobster on Mike Duffy’s tab. But this is just speculation…

Although the “taxation as theft” argument may be a stretch from the $52 million tax windfall issue, this inquiry is merely the logical solution to the problem. The editorials in the Sun have been bordering on this realization; just shy of publicly announcing their support for the abolition of mandatory taxation. And it’s a shame, really. If the city of Calgary and the province of Alberta decided to abolish mandatory taxation and open its “public services” to private competition, then we’d really see a Calgarian Advantage.

Caleb McMillan is an autodidact and blogger living in Canmore, Alberta. He blogs at TANSTAAFL CANADA!

Then, Gollum-resembling Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne happily slinked along and adopted Lind’s message to pen a column lambasting libertarianism for the same reasons. In his relentless crusade to defend the Obama administration, the somehow-popular commentator is giddy over the new evidence that statism is superior to decentralization. Titled “Libertarianism’’s Achilles’ Heel,” Dionne uses his professional skills to repeat Lind’s exact argument while bringing up that old progressive canard of the “Gilded Age” as proof of laissez-faire’s self-destructiveness.

You see, Eugene Joseph is a member of the lefty journalist cadre who spend their careers apologizing for state growth to a small band of loyal readers. At least once a week, he pens a column centered around one theme: conservative Republicans are derailing the progressive agenda and destroying the country in the process. The fact that Democrats and Republicans are, in Butler Shaffer’s wonderful phrase, “two wings of the same bird of prey” is ignored in favor of the democratic myth. Easy-to-digest simpleness is the commodity that sells the most when it comes to mainstream print.

The crux of Dionne’s contention rests on the question: “Why are there no libertarian countries?” The absence in the 21st century is somehow proof positive of libertarianism failing. Admittedly, for such a poor argument, it’s far better than the normal filth which seeps down major editorial pages.

Allow me to flip the reasoning around: if the Holocaust was so bad, why was it allowed to happen? If communism is so economically destructive and results in widespread starvation, why did Stalin and Mao’s authoritarian reign last so long? The point is, terrible events can take place despite the societal damage they cause. Just the same, peace and prosperity can stare folks in the face without their making an effort to reach out and grab it. As much as I try to rationalize man’s unbounded denseness, there is truly no good excuse for it.

Let’s assume that Dionne, along with Lind, agree that some ambiguous version of social democracy is their preferred form of governance. It would certainly seem so given their writing history. So I posit the question right back at them: why, if leftist political theory is so darn correct, does there exist notable conservative resistance in many of their model (read: Europe) countries?

The answer should be obvious – probably the reason it alludes such a brilliant mind as a Washington Post columnist. Humans have been debating the proper form of government for centuries. The lack of a consensus is as much of a mark against libertarianism as it is against [modern] liberalism, conservatism, socialism, or whatever “ism” happens to be expounded.

I remain unsure if the reality that the masses have yet to reach unanimity on political ideology is a positive or negative. As Bryan Caplan points out, proponents of non-aggression are, by definition, elitists. Libertarianism remains a minority position – which doesn’t make it wrong. Heliocentrism did not begin as widely accepted either. Some accuse libertarian proponents of reveling in their small numbers. This characterization is plainly wrong, for no libertarian who truly makes a free society their end goal would be content with mass disinclination. Unfortunately, the plain people tend to accept what’s comfortable without question. As long as they can still stake out a meager living, there will be little questioning over the curtailing of natural rights. The inherent tendency toward dullness is not the fault of a political theory that holds man to the highest degree of civility.

Lackadaisicalness to truthful pursuits is not the only explanation I can find for mass ambivalence toward liberty. Contrary to the progressive decree that “we are the state,” the gang of men who proclaim monopoly power are conspiratorial plotters of the highest caliber. The state was born of conquest – a toxic combination of envy and power. Through over a century of indoctrination, the people have come to accept government authority as essential to civilized life. They view the political bureaucracy as both a night watchman and a parental figure – all the while being fleeced of their wealth. The state survives because of it incremental growth model, expanding in scope at times of emergency and refusing to reverse course.

But even in a society lorded over by Dionne’s favored polity, there are still traces of pure liberty taking hold. The very basis of libertarianism, particularly the Rothbardian variety, is practiced every day – often without notice. When an individual engages in voluntary commercial activity with another, that is the free market at work. When a landlord and tenant agree to a contractual working relationship, they are taking up the common law tradition. As economist Peter Leeson writes, international trade is still largely conducted in a state of anarchy – with no overseeing state to manage affairs. Wherever Dionne or Lind turn their heads, the core of libertarianism flourishes. Many times, if the freedom of transaction was not still respected, living standards would be in dire straits. That some people bother to read the slobbering eulogies of Barack Obama that drip from Dionne’s pen is demonstration enough of the wonders of free enterprise.

Roderick Long has already pointed out Dionne’s understanding of the American economy circa late 19th century is already off. Actually, his whole bastardized conception of economics – and the democratic state which perverts it – is highly typical of the increasingly narrow viewpoint of anointed mouthpieces. The utopian demeanor of libertarians will prevent the philosophy from coming into full fruition according to our enlightened  writers. I have my own misgivings about a full realization of liberty in America, Canada, or any other country, in my lifetime. But cynicism should never get in the way of a higher ideal. Libertarianism is the most moral political philosophy that is conducive to man’s nature. Dionne is a cheerleader for violent redistribution with shoddy logic and second-rate prose. If his influence was larger than every other throwaway editorial writer, perhaps the argument would carry a bit more weight. It’s nice to see a mention of Murray Rothbard in a major newspaper though – in spite of the slow-witted readership.

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. Send him mail

The RCMP acted on the request of the Halton Police who claim to have forensics evidence linking Goro to the murder. Despite the unique timing of the crime and arrest, the police refuse to comment on the evidence while the trial is on. Jan Goro is essentially being treated as if he were already guilty. There was a bail hearing shortly after his arrest, but these show-trials act as crude justifications for extortion. Regardless, Jan Goro probably doesn’t have anyone to bail him out.

Goro lived alone in Banff. A co-worker who’s known him for 16 years called him, “very efficient, a good worker,” and that, “he kept to himself but he would come to some staff functions. He wouldn’t stand out. He worked and went home to watch TV and look after his cat.” The cops admit that, “he’s been alone his entire life; never married, no children. Lived on his own in a small apartment and kept to himself for the most part… We don’t believe he’s had any contact with any family members for quite some time — probably well over 20 years.” Goro’s boss was surprised by the news, “I wouldn’t think this person that I knew would be capable of something like that,” he said. “He’s a very gentle, caring soul.”

Goro’s alleged victim is Don Ross McAvella, a business owner murdered in 1976. This would make Jan Goro 29-years-old at the time. Goro is a refugee from the murderous communist-regime of Czechoslovakia. If guilty, Goro may be emotionally paralysed by the unforgivable act he committed 37 years ago or he’s hiding from someone other than the police – perhaps the mob. Goro probably didn’t speak English when he came to Canada. Downtown Burlington circa 1976 can be a dangerous place for the wrong person. Goro may have gotten himself involved with the wrong people out of desperation and circumstance.

The McAvella family is asking for privacy while the cops in charge of the case are calling this a “nice success story.” Jan Goro is a 66-year old man who was extradited by a militant police force and brought to a prison cell 3,000 km from his home. None of the charges have been proven and the forensic evidence that led to his arrest is confidential. This is hardly a success story. Even if Goro is guilty, the tactics used were pretty aggressive for an introverted old man who posed no immediate threat to the community.

But that’s the result of a system of law and order where a monopoly is in charge and payment is mandatory. The state is essentially a criminal organization catching other criminals. The state cannot allocate resources and labour effectively. It cannot adapt to the ever-changing conditions of people’s valuations. Private enterprise uses price signals, voluntary exchange and the profit-motive to determine individual wishes – the state taxes and therefore cannot use this mechanism. Even if staffed by honest cops, bureaucrats and politicians – the state cannot serve consumer interests in any objective way.

The boundaries of law and order need not be arbitrary jurisdictions, but a dynamic web of consumers demanding what works for them and entrepreneurs providing them these services. The fact that law and order is “contracted” out to a single monopoly that expands half the continent is beyond lunacy. In a free society Jan Goro wouldn’t have been kidnapped. The conviction process would be performed by a judicial system whose existence and operations depend on the voluntary payments of individuals who wish to live in a just society. The civilizing effects of trade would bring objectivity to the current subjective and arbitrary ways of law enforcement.

Caleb McMillan is an autodidact and blogger living in Canmore, Alberta. He blogs at TANSTAAFL CANADA!

Yet, this sort of unilateral demand remains depressingly common as governments clamor for any way they can think of to secure more revenue for their ever increasing spending projects. One example of such behavior comes from the American government seeking to collect taxes from nominal citizens who have lived their whole lives abroad and who have no ties to the country which they are expected to financially support.

Some Canadians, born in the U.S., are rebelling against the practice, arguing that their United States citizenship is merely an accident of birth and does not reflect either their loyalty or their heritage. They do not vote in American elections and reap no benefit from the domestic policies that taxes are meant to support.

Indeed, the whole idea behind taxation is supposed to be that of a large public goods problem, where the incentive to free ride renders voluntary payment for services such as national defense and roads problematic from an efficiency standpoint. Leaving aside the actual economic and philosophical merits of this argument, it can scarcely be denied that those who in no way benefit from services such as these, such as lifelong Canadian residents, should hardly be expected to pay for them.

Nor is it only in the realm of international affairs where taxation without representation can be observed today. It is well known that the District of Columbia suffers from a lack of meaningful congressional representation, and in fact the phrase “taxation without representation” appears, somewhat ironically, on the license plates of that district.

There is also the issue of the internet sales tax bill, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, currently moving through the legislature. This bill would require businesses to collect sales tax on online sales of merchandise based on the destination to which they are being shipped, even if the store has no physical presence there. Thus, a state will receive sales tax revenue from a business that is not benefitting from that state’s public policies. In other words, the business is being taxed without being represented.

The incentive effects of such a law mean that the states no longer have a reason to lower their sales tax rates in an effort to compete with their neighbors and attract businesses to locate themselves in a climate of favorable taxation, since they will be taxed by any states they ship to anyway. Likewise, consumers lose the ability to protest high sales taxes by purchasing goods online from a state where the tax burden is less onerous.

It should be evident to fair minded people that the involuntary extraction of taxes from those who do not stand to benefit from their use in any way is tantamount to simple theft. Those Canadians refusing to acquiesce to the unreasonable bullying of the IRS should be commended for their willingness to stand up against injustice and retain their rightfully earned property in the face of legal threats by a foreign government. If only we all were so principled, we might see a very different world.

Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.

Should prostitution be fully legal in Canada?

Objection 1: It seems that it should not because sex is not just another biologically dictated activity like eating, drinking, urinating, or excreting. Owing to the emotional bonds it can forge, and its role in producing the next generations of human beings, sex is a deeply significant, perhaps even sacred, aspect of human life. Sex is not something to be debased by legally sanctioning its purchase and sale on the free market.

Objection 2: There is currently no law prohibiting the buying and selling of sex in Canada, so the question wrongly assumes it is illegal. What is illegal is to communicate for the purposes of engaging in prostitution, to live off its proceeds, to maintain a brothel, or even to be found in one.

Objection 3: People are not objects to be used by others at their convenience like a plant or a rock. Human beings are ends in themselves, worthy of intrinsic respect. But prostitutes and their clients use each other when they exchange money and sex. As such, prostitution is demeaning to humanity, whereas the law should affirm our dignity as a species, which it appropriately does by proscribing the commercialization of sexual relations.

Objection 4: Prostitution is a dangerous and shameful profession. For this reason, only the most desperate and vulnerable members of society opt to sell their bodies for sex. No authentic self-fulfillment is to be found in that way of life. Keeping prostitution illegal will discourage individuals from pursuing what must inevitably end up being a personally disastrous course.

Objection 5: Given the huge number and wide variety of individuals with whom prostitutes have sexual relations, the latter are subject to a high risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases. This, in turn, increases the chances of such diseases being spread to their customers and, from there, to their wives, husbands, partners, boyfriends, and girlfriends, in the process undermining marriages, families, and relationships. As an economist might say, prostitution involves negative externalities. To remedy this, the state must raise the personal costs of participating in the sex trade in order to better reflect its social costs.

On the contrary, individuals have the right to do as they please as long as they do not violate the same freedom that others possess.

I answer that sex is indeed a very big deal. Evidencing this fact is how often people think about sex, how much time and effort they devote to getting it, how they are constantly open to advice on ways of enhancing its pleasures, not to mention the weight they place on sex in assessing their ongoing relationships. Yet this is precisely why liberty must be paramount with respect to how the state regulates sex. The importance of sex to our lives demands that we be free to choose when, where, why, how, and with whom to have it. To be constrained in any of these respects is to be disabled from realizing a very material component of our happiness. This point is recognized in the moral horror that is widely felt against acts of coerced sex. It is also implicit in legislation that has been passed over the past several decades banning sexual harassment, laws that are essentially about neutralizing the possibilities of coercive sex perceived to be embedded within the inequalities of power in the workplace.  However morally distasteful it may be to some, the logical corollary of individual freedom is for every adult to be permitted to buy and sell sex for money.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated above, the significance of sex in human affairs argues more for the provision of its free exercise than its restriction by the state. Besides, the contention that human sexuality is sacred is a purely religious concept which the state has no business in enforcing.

Reply to Objection 2: It is true that Canada’s Criminal Code does not ban the mere act of monetarily trafficking in sex. But, for all intents and purposes, it does so by prohibiting acts that enable and facilitate the practice as a viable trade.

Reply to Objection 3: No adult person is exploited when they freely consent to an exchange of goods and services with another adult. Each party enters into the transaction because they calculate they will be better off as a result – that what they give up is less valuable to them than what they will get in return. Sex for money is no exception to this rule. The buyer personally values the money being sacrificed less than the sexual services they expect to receive; the seller personally values the money being received more than the discomfort of making their body available for sex.

Reply to Objection 4: The dangers of prostitution mostly derive from the fact that those involved in that activity cannot readily appeal to the government for redress of wrongs and protection. By illegalizing prostitution, and then simultaneously turning a mostly blind eye to it in the so-called red light districts of large cities, the state has effectively acquiesced to a state of nature in those areas where violence is allowed to reign and settle disputes. Nor would bringing this state of nature to an end by legalizing prostitution make the trade especially attractive to individuals seeking a livelihood. Not being a cognitively demanding task, the selling of sex would likely command the same sort of esteem and respect as a profession that other physical occupations elicit — which is to say, not much.

Reply to Objection 5: Buyers of sexual services have a strong interest in gauging whether sellers are free of sexually transmitted diseases. To attract business, sellers would be compelled to offer this assurance. Current laws preclude this, however, by restricting the flow of information in the sex trade in addition to rendering it impossible for prostitutes to organize themselves into firms that can more credibly offer customers assurance of health and safety through the maintenance of clean and attractive facilities, the screening of employees, and the building of a good reputation over time.

Tomas Salamanca is a Canadian Scholar.

This process started when the Superior Court of Ontario ruled that prostitution was eh-okay. The federal government appealed the decision putting the legality into question. The ruling Ontario judge, Susan Himel, argues that prohibition violates the Charter of Rights & Freedoms and that the harm done by the current laws exceed the potential harm of legalization. The Conservative government disagrees.

As the Supreme Court of Canada examines the issue this week, I hope they come across the economic argument. The fact that sex workers exist is an indication that some people enjoy trading sex for money and vice versa. Consenting adults should not have to worry about an aggressive third-party arbitrator claiming moral superiority. Attempts to outlaw this practice inevitably lead to a black market. No amount of force will prevent people from pursuing what they want. The government cannot change human nature; they can only create criminals out of entrepreneurs and consumers.

Most sex workers probably sight the Charter as proof that their profession is a human right. But there ain’t no such thing as human rights. An individual has ownership of his or her own body and accumulates resources to transform, trade and consume. But outside of this right to own property, there are no abstract “human rights.” Sex workers own themselves and can acquire property to conduct their business. Consenting adults are free to exchange based on these two precepts. The idea that our freedom comes from a piece of paper presupposes that we have no rights until the state determines their existence. It would be odd to call that kind of society “free” in any sense of the word.

Caleb McMillan is an autodidact and blogger living in Canmore, Alberta. He blogs at TANSTAAFL CANADA!

Because humans take action to dispel uneasiness, an unburdensome world can be thought of as one requiring no action, or at least very little activity at all. No labor, no critical thought, and no surprises – this is the kind of halcyon environment which exists only in retellings of ancient tales. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that he preferred the “tumult of liberty” to the “quiet of servitude.” Being the autodidact he was, it is likely a majority of people do not share in his contempt for the monotonous.

As much as I appreciate leisure, it seems life would be a bore without a turning of events – both for the better and worse. A desire for peace does not necessarily equate to a want for tediousness. Having a routine can be conducive to pursuing more scholastic ends. But when it comes to worldly events, expecting the worst can carry its own charm.

In our current political world of bumbling doofuses and bright, scheming planners, there is little to be surprised about. Wars are fought, taxes are raised, torture is committed, and cultural Marxism runs amok. A statesman who stands up to the driving force of government power yelling “stop” is a true rarity. The bundles of word-processed paper – mistakenly called laws – which emerge from the smoke-filled rooms and corners of Congress or Parliament contain one purpose: shatter civil society at the gain of state authority. Expecting anything good from the minds of politicians is like expecting good from the mind of a serial killer. The prerogative is control and perpetuation of the lie of state eternality.

The recent string of scandals in the Obama administration – which has thus far culminated with the outing of a massive data collection racket – has been met with a tremendous amount of ire. Conservatives are taking the opportunity to cast the President as the big government man he is. The Left, which appears to finally be having its Emperor-has-no-clothes moment, is being equally critical. For once, the class of media squawkers appears genuinely upset the U.S. government is engaged in a massive data collection scheme without the permission of the users to whom the information belongs. Essentially, they are finally doing their jobs as state critics. Bask in the integrity while it lasts because it’s not here to stay. Soon enough, the flippant remarks of some self-immolating celebrity will reclaim the news cycle.

What surprised this author about the government’s massive metadata collection wasn’t the startled reaction of the press, but the shocked attitude of libertarian colleagues of mine. I could only offer a chuckle and shake my head when the story broke. News of a gargantuan state information gathering scheme taking place has been around for years now, beginning with the rushed passing of the Patriot Act. As Scott Locklin writes,

The Federation of Atomic Scientsts has been reporting on this for decades. Whistleblowers and journalists have been talking about these programs for generations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has actually been filing lawsuits against the NSA and the telecom industry on these specific issues for years now.

In April of 2012, whistleblower William Binney revealed on the leftist Democracy Now! that the National Security Agency had collected up to 20 trillion data points documenting individual transactions. A month ago, it was reported the agency was storing up to 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other communications a day. The outrage did not peak until the Guardian’s breaking of the judge-ordered Verizon shakedown made headlines. News of the same mass confiscation at AT&T, Sprint, major credit card companies, and various other high tech corporations came a day after. It took well over a year for the mass public to finally believe what has been occurring for years. On some standard – perhaps one which measures the collective boobusness of Americans – such a delay is probably impressive.

The news of the mammoth information accumulation orchestrated by the government should not be surprising to anyone who understands the purpose behind all political action. The state will always be a gang of thugs that helps itself  to society’s wealth, no matter who is elected or appointed. Even in Canada, the ostensible home to “good government,” the current payoff scandal involving Senator Mike Duffy and former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snowballing upon itself into something bigger. There are calls on both sides of the political aisle for investigation into Parliamentary expenses as well as an audit of the Prime Minister’s office. Still, the stench of corruption, no matter how familiar, always seems to surprise even the most veteran of political observers. It’s almost a question of who to resent more: pernicious state bureaucrats or the dumbfounded who continuously appear shocked at every new controversy.

With the American public’s short-term memory now focused on their internet pornography searches being read by government officials, actual tragedies will continue to receive little attention. Little outcry was heard when Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old son of Islamic cleric Anwar Awlaki, was killed via drone strike along with eight others. Former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blamed the killing of the innocent teenager on his irresponsible father. All the pro-lifers on the Right never uttered a word about it. While they focus on warrantless data collection at home, the Empire they support abroad is slaughtering women and children by the hundreds. Army private Bradley Manning has been held in captivity for years for leaking military secrets the Pentagon determined were no threat to national security, with a trial only recently beginning. Like the young al-Awlaki, he received minute attention. I would like to say I am surprised by the total apathy, but I am not. Such is the narrowed purview of those who wrap themselves in the national flag while claiming the mantle of “limited government.” The very reason the U.S. government’s spy ring is seeing so much outrage is the attention paid to domestic surveillance. Disgusting arch nationalism that inhabits the mind of most Americans acts as an obstruction for offense. In their eyes, those who live outside Uncle Sam’s borders are subhumans – not to be afforded the same human rights as superior yankees.

Glenn Greenwald, the staunch civil libertarian and well-read blogger who broke the story, will likely be investigated by the Department of Justice for his leaking of the NSA scoop. In an interview with the New York Times, Greenwald says that while he may be looked into, “what I am doing is exactly what the Constitution is about and I am not worried about it.” It’s nice to read such optimism – despite its naive understanding of government power. Perhaps Greenwald was being coy, as the Constitution in theory protects his speech. The reality is that the Constitution, to borrow Lysander Spooner’s distinction, neither limited the authority of the American state or was designed to be impotent to stop it. Instead of welcoming the debate over civil liberties as Obama promised, the biggest news since Nixon’s paranoid spying episode would be erased from the public’s already-forgetful mind if the President could make such a thing was possible. Greenwald promises there will be more revelations – a welcome invitation for a well-timed drone strike if that too could be pulled off clandestinely.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has called the leaks gut-wrenching – implying that the data mining was supposed to remain under wraps and out of view of the American people. Counter to these hyperbolic claims, it’s highly unlikely The Enemy wasn’t already aware of the U.S. government’s vast surveillance apparatus. According to the leaker, 29-year-old Edward Snowden, “any analyst at any time can target anyone…anywhere,” regardless of authority. Even the President’s personal email could be snooped upon by the intelligence community – a clear and ironic victory for egalitarianism. Expecting this sort of repugnant behavior by government is, contrary to feel-goody reasoning, quite healthy. As the old Paulian dictum goes, it’s best to not expect much so as to prepare yourself for pleasant surprises. To the overpaid, underworked NSA bureaucrat reading this article, I can only offer a wry “hello” and a polite “go to hell.”

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. Send him mail

The issue of climate change essentially boils down to four questions: is it happening? Are we causing it? Can we stop it? Should we stop it?

The answer to the first question is undoubtedly yes, as long as we understand climate change to mean that the climate of an entire planet is never going to be completely static. Maybe the Moon has an unchanging climate, but the Earth never has and never will. The second question is hotly debated, but upon reflection we find that the answer is not terribly relevant. The cause of a problem is irrelevant. It is the solution with which we should be concerned.

The third question is highly debateable. Most serious proposals on how to address climate change call for massive changes in our lifestyles that would have an immense impact on the world economy. There is also the unrealistic assumption that, even if we could convince our own leaders, China and India would somehow be persuaded to come along just as they are beginning to come into their own as superpowers.

The fourth question is ultimately the most important, and the one which receives the least attention. If the costs of fighting climate change are greater than those of allowing it to happen, then it should be obvious that inaction is the logical policy. Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, recently stated this truth with remarkable clarity.

“What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers? We do not see a viable pathway with any known technology today to achieve the 350 [parts per million target for carbon in the atmosphere] outcome that is not devastating to economies, societies and peoples’ health and well-being around the world. So the real question is, do you want to keep arguing about that and pursuing something that cannot be achieved at costs that will be detrimental? Or do you want to talk about what’s the path we should be on and how do we mitigate and prepare for the consequences as they present themselves?“

This is a great point, because the whole point of environmental policies should be to maximize human welfare while respecting the rights of individuals. The current proposals to combat climate change do neither of those things. The fact that environmental activists are unwilling to do this sort of analysis indicates that they are not really concerned with human welfare, but instead merely exhibit a religious devotion to nature irrespective of its effect on mankind. Similar to the opposition to the use of DDT in Africa to ward of parasite-borne illness, this is just another example of how the environmentalist movement possesses a fundamentally anti-human bias.

Climate change is only a problem with respect to how it impacts the lives of real people. Any policy proposal that does not take this into consideration should not be taken seriously.

Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.

Greetings Whatcom County Libertarians. This is Ron Bailey in Birch Bay with an important message.

I am sure each of you has asked yourself how things might have been different if our President were Ron Paul rather than Barack Obama. I sure have, many times.

Walter Block is coming to Bellingham on June 20, 6 PM at the Ferndale WECU to speak specifically to you, our Whatcom County Liberty activists on this topic.

Who is Walter Block? Dr. Block is a professor of Economics at Loyola University in New Orleans. He has been working with Ron Paul and others in the Liberty movement for many years, and can give us a view of what might have been and could still be if we continue the struggle for Liberty. If Ron Paul were President, Walter Block would likely be Secretary of the Treasury, a job at which he would be fabulously effective. He wants to speak to you about what he and others would be doing in a Ron Paul administration to further the cause of individual liberty. Dr. Block usually commands a substantial speaking fee, but he has agreed to waive his fee for the Liberty activists in Whatcom County, and speak to us free of charge!

 Why is Dr. Block doing this? Well, it happens he will be in Vancouver BC at the time, so no travel expenses, and he sometimes speaks without a fee to people who take action to support Liberty. He knows many of us supported Ron Paul for President in 2008 and 2012 and that we continue to work for more liberty and less government.

Dr. Block holds a PhD in Economics from Columbia University, so you might think he is a stuffy professor spouting economics jargon unintelligible to normal people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Walter is an engaging, entertaining and humorous speaker, able to discuss and answer questions on economics, politics and the philosophy of Liberty in a way that all can understand and enjoy.

See the flyer below. If for some reason you can’t see Walter’s smiling face, click on this link:  http://www.birchbayvotersforronpaul.com/

Redmond is the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada.

Last Friday, an asteroid spanning nearly two miles in length

As predatory as a state regime is, monopolized extraterrestrial defensive systems are less repulsive than most other government functions. It might be funded by theft and as efficient as Robert Gibbs on an elliptical machine, but protecting the Earth from a rogue asteroid brushes up against the dubious definition of a “public good.” Unfortunately, reason dictates the chance of a bureaucrat-run asteroid destroyer performing its intended purpose is slim to none. Like everything else the state gets a hold on, a vile mix of rent-seeking and militaristic aspirations will taint one of the few endeavors that garners an iota of legitimacy. Private initiative will always pummel government-action in effectiveness because of the insurmountable profit-loss feedback system. But if state-sponsored celestial exploration is already in place, it might as well be serve a useful purpose, such as potentially saving the human race.

My wishful thinking will necessarily prove wrong, as central planners would rather shake down the superior man in business. In Canada – where the national space program is relatively new – government regulators are busy hatching up a new scheme to regulate the cellular phone industry. The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission has updated The Wireless Code with a provision that allows consumers to opt out of their private wireless plan after two years. In effect, the amortization period of every contract will be legally capped. The code will be enforced as a consumer benefit against predatory sellers. Why the same people trusted to self-govern in a democracy are not trusted to make decisions for themselves is never a question answered by state mouthpieces. CRTC chair and control freak Jean-Pierre Blais says the new rule with go aways toward creating a more “dynamic marketplace.” Calling an industry with its own regulatory body an actual marketplace is a deceptive joke – especially when a burdensome rule has just been created. As Andrew Coyne writes, the Canadian telecom industry is no paragon of perfect rivalry, but rather

“a carefully circumscribed, artificially sustained affair, a kind of hothouse competition in which the weaker firms are kept in the game by government action, a simulacrum designed to preserve the illusion of competition in place of the real thing.”

So what is the detailed science behind the two year cap? The sociopaths in Ottawa’s governing bodies have yet to offer up any justification for the arbitrary threshold. For all we know, “two” could have been a number written on a card, picked in a drunken game of office roulette. Blais claims public feedback had a hand in the decision. That makes sense, considering the masses will opt for any convenience regardless of untold or long-term circumstances. The Wireless Code was reformed with the very intention of making the transition between wireless companies easier – unintended consequences be damned!

Hayek’s fatal conceit – the poignant idea that central planners will never possess the knowledge necessary to even begin rationally organizing society – wafts through the halls of Canada’s finest bureaucracies with impunity. To be a state regulator, you either must be an absent-minded droll or accept that your inner-expertise is infallible. Any other mindset would serve as a constant reminder to the futility of the task at hand.

The breadth of knowledge in a fully functional market economy is something far too big and wide-ranging for any one mind to decipher. Central planners who make a genuine attempt are engaged in a Sisyphean quest. The unintended consequences – and there are always unintended consequences – will lead to more calls for interventionism. Such a vicious cycle is exacerbated by the public’s inane conception that government is somehow blessed with the tools to fix society, like a plumber with a clogged drain. Worse is the delusion propagated on many soundstages and campaign theaters that public employees work on behalf of the greater good rather than their own interests. For every bureaucrat who fantasizes of molding a perfect society, there are thousands, if not millions, who believe he is quite capable of doing so.

The cost effect of the new provision to the Wireless Code is still not known. One would think that would be relevant consideration for any significant rule change. Forgetting his Bastiat and Hazlitt, Blais is only accounting for the immediate effects of his policy. In the world of planning diktats, it is far more important to act under the appearance of “doing something” rather than having a positive impact. Voters, who cast ballots not just for politicians but consent to the state itself, take kindly to government officials who appears to be acting in the public interest.

Market behavior is impossible to accurately predict, but the new cap on cell phone contracts will inevitably create a distortion that paves the way for increased regulation down the road. If cell providers are prevented from offering three-year plans, they will likely charge a higher monthly premium to make up for the potential loss in revenue. Businesses are future-minded and must estimate revenue to price products and services accordingly. A three-year contract gave a high degree of certainty to profit generation – hence the levying of a penalty to recover losses. The imposition of two-year contracts, while unclear in ultimate repercussion, bans what was an expected source of income. It would be an act of extreme naivety to think cell companies will take this on the chin. The simplicity explains its absence from the minds of those in positions of governance.

The new ban is a consequence of previous regulatory barriers that made the cellular industry into an oligopoly. In a comprehensive study released in 2012 by the Orginsation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada was found home to the second most restrictive telecommunication regulations in the world.  Much of this is due to barriers on foreign investment. According to Ottawa University law professor Michael Geist, the already-existing regulations have made Canada “substantially less competitive” in the telecom industry compared to “most other developed countries.” Piling one more rule on top of an already labyrinthe-like code of conduct will harm more consumers than helps – a formula all too common for state intervention. Less a new technological innovation comes along that greatly decreases production cost, diminished supply of cell service will – ceteris paribus – bring an increase of price. It will only be a matter of time before another self-righteous societal clay molder demands immediate state rectification. I don’t normally buy into determinism, but the ratcheting effect of government interposition is a disease that feeds on itself. The do-gooders won’t stop until their grasp is tightly around the whole of the economy. And even then, inefficiencies will be blamed on a non-existent capitalism.

Cell phones are practically a requirement for existing in the digital age. But that does not mean they should be susceptible to government regulation and control. Instead of projecting their megalomaniacal urge for domination on the telecommunication industry, perhaps Blais and company’s mental defect would be best used to prepare Earth for her next meeting with an asteroid. Give them a few million loonies and put them on the next shuttle to the International Space Station. Let the diabolical schemes flourish outside the planet’s atmosphere.

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. Send him mail