PS Unions

The Tyranny of Collective Rights

Part Two:  Public Service Unions

    There are two political theories of employment. And, only two. The line between the two is the line between right and left-wing philosophy.

    Right-wing philosophy is based upon respect for the principles of liberty and individual rights. A position of employment is recognised as the property of the employer. And, as a guest naturally considers the wishes of a host when visiting a home, so does an employee naturally respect the conditions offered by an employer. The employee is free to accept offered conditions, or to seek (or create) employment elsewhere. This is the system based upon a foundation of respect for the freedom of both parties. These principles apply to all employment, whether a lemonade stand, an automobile manufacturer, or the government.

       However, left-wing philosophy is based upon the principle of collectivism, which does not accept the right of private property. A job is not considered the property of the employer, but is considered collective property with the employee. This then leads to the “collective right” to bargain conditions, as employees form a union to bargain their own contracts against employers.

      In this system, the employer is not free to determine the conditions of employment, and the individual employee is not free to accept offered conditions.

      There is no middle ground between these two systems. Either, the employer is allowed the freedom and respect to decide conditions, or the employer is not.

      In a right-wing system, “fairness” is a clean and object line. The employer offers what is determined to be fair, and the employee makes a simple decision as to whether it is acceptable and fair. However, in a collectivist system, “fairness” is an entirely arbitrary line. The union can demand anything, and call it fair: or reject anything, and call it unfair.

       As always, the “collective right” is a violation of the true freedoms and rights of all.

     The existence of PS unions is an even more unacceptable assault on democracy and the principles of liberty. In a nation based upon respect for individual rights, our elected representatives must be 100% accountable to those who elect them and pay their salaries. Our politicians must be free and responsible to determine the conditions of PS employment. This includes any who receive tax dollars as wages, including teachers and police. However, the existence of PS unions denies our elected representatives the power to fulfill this crucial and correct role. It is an injustice and an offense that PS employees are able to “bargain” their own salaries and benefits against essentially defenceless working Canadians.

       The time has come to begin to identify and understand the line between policies which uphold liberty and individual rights, versus those that violate these values. The Left is constantly disguising and obscuring their agenda in endless, evasive new labels, yet the principles remain the same.

     We can no longer live in a society where some can claim a “collective right” which clearly violates respect for the rights of others. A strong, correct step is for governments to eliminate all PS unions, restoring accountability to our elected representatives, and respect for working Canadians. 

The Tyranny of Collective Rights: Part One

The Tyranny of Collective Rights

Part 1: Protests

    We live in a country where we are taught that a “collective right” allows an individual to violate the basic rights of another. We live in a country where the police do not uphold law and order, and allow individuals to block public roadways or occupy public spaces, because we have come to believe that they have a collective right to do so. Essentially, individuals believe that they have a right to ignore the basic civility and order of our society wherever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. In this, the collective right is entirely arbitrary, without objective lines or limits on this behavior. There is no punishment or consequences for this behaviour. The government orders our police to stand back, more concerned with the safety and “rights” of those who break the laws of our society.

    If I decide to stand in the middle of the street or occupy a public space for any length of time, the police quickly and correctly ask me to move along, or arrest me if I refuse. Either way, the public space is efficiently cleared. There is no bargaining, no negotiating, no stand-offs.

      However, at some point, someone declared that there should be a “collective right” which allows individuals to violate this basic respect for law and order in our society.

     It is rightly the role of government to maintain law and order. Which, obviously includes keeping the streets cleared for the use of the public. This should be a simple and understood procedure. However, the problem is now more challenging because of the years of governments evading and failing this basic responsibility. The bottom line is that the authority of the state must be obeyed. If the police ask individuals to move along, this must happen. It can no longer be a case where the police must wait until the protesters feel like going home. The use of whatever force necessary to uphold the law is justified. This does not mean that we live in a “police state”. It means that we live in a society where there are police that uphold the law. Failing to uphold the law, or allowing the law to be ignored, is a state of anarchy. There is no middle ground. Either the law is obeyed, or it is ignored. The laws that apply to one person cannot be ignored when applied to a group of people. The laws must be applied to all equally.

    The time has come to draw a clear line between a right to peaceful assembly, and this entirely separate injustice of individuals blocking roadways and public places, created by the acceptance of these conflicting and contrary “collective rights”.

    As all nations embrace necessary austerity measures, the escalation of the danger, vandalism, and violence of these protests is inevitable. These demonstrations increasingly threaten all citizens, police forces, physical infrastructure, and commerce. Lack of respect for law and order, and disregard for civility and consideration for one another are signs and symptoms of a society regressing to its natural barbaric state. It is not too late to turn things around, but our governments must present a clear, concerted, and committed position on this unfolding issue.

Street Protests

Street Protests- the end of an era

A billion dollars in security costs for a few days of meetings. Why? Mostly, to protect and allow a "right to protest". In the end, it will be respect given to those who will show none.

The time is well over-due for responsible, respectful individuals to reconsider the place of street protests in our democracy, and their participation in these events. The question is whether this "right to protest" is an acceptable violation of other's right to freedom of passage on public roads and sidewalks, and in public spaces.

Would it be acceptable if a single individual blocked traffic for an indefinite amount of time- for whatever reason or cause? The answer is no. The authority of the state would intervene immediately, and the freedom of passage would be restored. Yet, we seem to unquestioningly and unanimously accept this disgraceful and disrespectful behavior from any group or mob, even applauding individuals exercising their "right to protest".

It is the accumulated failure and apathy of our governments in permitting this civil disorder which has allowed the mutation of an increasingly virulent breed of barbarian- nihilists, anarchists, and unionists who's true and deeper motivations are nothing more than the violent and mindless destruction of civilisation.

It is time for all decent, mature citizens to recognise that a "right to protest" can never be justified if it violates the basic civil order and peace of our society. It is wrong if one feels justified in violating the liberty of others to achieve one's ends.

There are a thousand ways to contribute constructively to the unfolding of the issues of our times. Standing in a mob for a few hours, shouting simplistic slogans, and physically denying the personal and commercial flow and freedom of society are more the actions of spoiled children than mature adults. Protests are moreover a symptom of a people who have lost an understanding of their own capacity to patiently and productively create change in their lives. It is time to put behind us this false idea that we are nothing more than cynical bystanders on the sidelines of our lives, capable of nothing more than impotently shaking our fists at politicians on TV.

If you want to make a difference, avoid the absurd delusion that standing in a street "sending a message" is somehow "participating". Get involved.

It is time for all reasonable, responsible people to leave behind these crude remnants of 60's tribalism called street protests. Once good and decent individuals no longer participate, then there will remain only the goons and thugs, and the authorities can act immediately and effectively.

Our governments have abdicated their basic responsibility for too long- this being to uphold the basic respect, order, and civility of our society. There can never be a "right", or a cause, or an excuse which justifies one individual violating the person, property, or passage of another.

Let us begin to rebuild our society on the foundations of courtesy and respect for one another.

Embracing English

In earlier times upon the earth, people lived scattered in essentially isolated tribes, each with it's own separate language or dialect, each entirely incomprehensible to any other. Mostly, these tribes lived in fear and ignorance of one another, territorial divisions sustained by constant conflict, collective prejudices nurtured by the community and passed down from one generation to the next.

In those days, there was no real communication between tribes. There were no common languages, little to communicate if there were, and geography generally discouraged even the opportunity.

Then, the wheel was invented, and we were off and running. People started traveling, and started mingling.

Nowadays, tribal divisions have all but disappeared. The idea and identity of historical collectives lingers on, yet more as the memories and remnants of an earlier time.

The new reality is that we are now one people upon the earth. Around the world, individuals exchange ideas in an instant. The internet has allowed an unprecedented opportunity to communicate, educate, exchange, and inspire. Even the recent development of big screen, high definition TVs allows a more intimate and moving view of the world around us.

In this unfolding global village, it is inevitable that a single global language is emerging. Contrary to the convictions of many, this is not leading to a single, homogeneous global culture. Just the opposite. The values and virtues of all cultures are being brought into the world. Our lives are being enriched by the wisdom and experience of all.

Equally, the vices and oppressions of some societies are becoming clear and obvious to all, including the citizens of these cultures. Repressive regimes maintain their tyranny by restricting and denying communication and information. Linguistic barriers achieve the same effect. An inability to communicate clearly and directly achieves the same mutual isolation and intellectual impoverishment. Oppressed people do not really understand their own situation without context to other societies.

Inevitably, there will be those who feel offended or threatened as the world embraces a common language. A tribalist perspective remains deep in our understanding of "who we are". The idea of "my people"- viewing the world in terms of racial divisions- has been ingrained for so many millenniums that it requires constant reassessment and reminder of the new reality that we are truly one people now.

The true foundation of "who we are" is that we are each a unique individual. I am not my race, my language, my region, or my country. Equally, I recognise and consider others as individuals. I would not hesitate a moment, were a language other than my own emerging as the common language of the world, to apply myself to learn this new language. It would not be a threat to my own identity or values. It would have the opposite effect. It would allow me to communicate with everyone.

At some point, we must find the courage of consensus to understand that the emerging global language has become English. This is not a victory for English (or "the English), as if triumphant from some great battle, all other languages having been mercilessly ground into submission. It is just the new reality.

It has become the responsibility of every conscientious parent to make sure that their children are comfortably fluent in English. This ensures that they are comfortable throughout their country and in the world, able to communicate clearly and easily with all. This ensures that they can be enriched by the abundance and opportunity of the internet, and share their lives with all.

I offer that it is Canada's time to lead the world in embracing English as our single official language, as an inspiration and example of a people big enough to change when the time has come, and when change is right.

A New Canada

It is time to consider a new vision for Canada. Our present politicians offer nothing more than the same old pandering to traditional groups in our nation, deceitfully playing one off of another, promising greater advantage than the other parties- with little more than the attainment of power and partisan tactics as their true purpose. Modern politics has become nothing more than the same week-old porridge, in an endless supply of shiny new bowls. A successful modern politician has become one who can speak with apparent great authority and conviction, yet say absolutely nothing.

It does not have to be this way.

It is time to re-evaluate the identity of our nation, to leave behind the constant entrenchment and affirmation of historic divisions. This article is an occasion to sketch out the social and economic consequences of rebuilding our nation on the foundations of respect for one another as individuals.

In earlier times, people lived as separate tribes upon the earth, speaking a thousand languages and dialects. Either, these tribes were unaware of each other, or oftentimes in competition or conflict. However, the present truth and reality of our global village continues to evolve. An idea can encompass the world in a moment. An individual can affect the unfolding of history from anywhere.

Yet, we still live very much in the past, clinging to archaic collective identities, sustaining long irrelevant antagonisms more by momentum than any present purpose. Few are smaller than those who work only for "their people", indifferent to all others. The path of maturity and respect is to know that the intentions and ambitions of one's efforts are towards the mutual advantage of all people- none advantaged at the expense of another.

Prejudice is only possible in a society where people are considered divided into groups. Prejudice is not possible in a society where each is respected as an individual. Prejudice is not prevented by the force of the state attempting to protect and defend groups. Prejudice will be eliminated by the enthusiasm, enterprise, and initiative of responsible citizens promoting a nation based upon respect for one another as individuals.

There are many subtle forms of these tribal divisions in our country- regional, racial, religious, or gender to name a few.

It is a disrespect to be judged solely on the qualities and values of one's collective. To consider others as merely defined by a group is to be blind to their qualities and values as an individual. When the state gives advantage to the individuals in one group, it does so at the forced sacrifice of other individuals. "Collective rights" are always at the expense of individual rights.

Thus, the only possible just foundation upon which to build our nation must be based upon considering one another as equal individuals. Legally, there must be one law for all. There cannot be different laws for different groups.

It is time to put behind us the idea that there are separate nations within our country, just as it is time to leave behind the idea that we are separated into "peoples". Canada must become one nation, with one people, and one law that applies to all equally.

As we move towards these values, it will become obvious that there is need for only one official language. It is to the advantage of all to be able to communicate clearly and directly. Inevitably, there will be those who feel offended and threatened at the idea of allowing French to be eliminated as an official language in our country- especially those who presently personally profit from sustaining the present situation- like separatist politicians and francophone media.

Yet, the communicating world is rapidly adopting and accepting English as our universal language. We are part of the world. At some point, we will also adopt a common tongue. It is inevitable that English will become our nation's single official language. People will always be richer for speaking other languages, yet a parent would only be handicapping their children if they do not ensure complete fluency in English these days.

A crucial economic consequence of building a nation upon the foundations of individual rights is that the state will no longer have the power to force money to individuals in any group. A fair case could be made for financial support for the northern territories. Otherwise, no regions would receive money forced from individuals in other regions. No races would receive money forced from individuals of other races. No occupations would receive money forced from individuals in other occupations. No political parties would receive money forced from individuals who might support other parties. And, no media broadcaster would receive money forced from individuals who might support other broadcaster.

This is a simple, clear, and objective line. Once one accepts the principle of the state forcing economic redistribution, there can never be a limit or boundary to this intervention. Eliminate the principle of arbitrary state intervention into the economy, and the line is clear and concrete.

In a nation based upon individual rights, the state does not recognise individuals divided into groups, so policies of forced economic redistribution are not a possibility or an issue.

The Canada of tomorrow will be one united nation, with one people, one law, and one official language. Our nation will become a light unto the world as one based clearly and firmly upon true and fair respect for one another. The example of our nation will be our gift to the world.