THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

Jack Plant

unread,

May 18, 2001, 12:30:33 AM5/18/01

to

Originally published in:

Freedom Flyer 11

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

November 1987

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Fp President r Robert Metz

If there's one thing I've had drummed into me over the past several
months, it's this:

The public hates unions.

Except for a small core of ideologically radical supporters, almost
everyone has something bad to say about unions. The reasons for hating
unions are many and varied, but the feeling sure is familiar.

"They should all be shot!" is a frequently-expressed sentiment. "Lazy
bums" is another. "Why should they be going on strike when they make
so much more than the rest of us?" is the number one complaint.

Yet, despite all the complaining, broad public acceptance of unions
--- as legitimate political and bargaining agents --- still persists.
How come?

I think the reason has something to do with this: You see, too few of
us really know what's going on behind the labour movement. Hardly
anybody really understands the issue.

Just what is it that the labour movement wants? What is it really
after? Why is it that everything the labour movement wants has to be
achieved by forcing everybody else to go along? Why can't it achieve
its goals through reasoned advocacy and mutual consent?

Why won't the "labour movement" play fair?

"Without adding collective bargaining principles to the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms," announced CUPE's president, Jeff Rose, "unions
may lose the right to negotiate mandatory union membership. To bargain
successfully," he concluded, "individual needs have to be suppressed
to serve the needs of the majority."

But "suppressing the needs of the individual in order to serve the
needs of the majority" is precisely what leaders of fascist,
communist, socialist, and many of the eastern and third world
countries have been advocating and are practicing today. And you can
only suppress the needs of the individual by suppressing individual
rights.

Any group, association, or union that can't recognize the principle of
individual rights isn't an "association", but a gang or mob --- or
worse.

And that's what's wrong with the labour movement. It wants to
"suppress the needs of the individual."

So much for labour philosophy. Let's examine this frightening goal via
practical application:

A good place to start would be by taking a realistic look at how the
"labour movement" views labour itself. Everybody knows that if there's
one thing union members are told to hate above all else, it's a scab.

Somebody who's willing to do their job for less.

Scab labour.

The very term sounds offensive, and with good reason. Economically,
"scab labour" means competitive labour. Politically, it means the
enemy.

Yet, even "scab" labour is still labour. Obviously, the labour
movement's philosophy that "everybody should have the right to a job"
is practiced as "Nobody has a right to our jobs."

And that's the awful truth behind the labour movement. While it
camouflages itself behind its proclamations that everyone should have
a "right to a job", it systematically works to deny the opportunity of
earning that right to anyone who isn't a dues-paying "member".

I hate to disappoint anyone, but I'm afraid there just isn't any such
thing as "the right to a job" --- and that's why the labour movement
(or government, for that matter) is incapable of actually providing
such a right.

A "job", lest we forget, is simply the term we use to describe a
particular relationship --- specifically, an economic one. A "job" is
not a piece of property that anyone can "own" or claim a "right" to.

By suggesting that an employee has a "right" to a job, the labour
movement is advocating that some people should have a "right" to a
relationship, regardless of what the other half of that "relationship"
may have to say about it.

So excuse me for bringing this up, but I thought we're supposed to be
living in a free country where we have a right to choose our
relationships. Surely, freedom of association must include the right
not to associate. Otherwise, where's the "freedom"?

It seems to me that if two or more people can't get along or agree
with each other, then it's their moral, ethical, and logical
obligation to peacefully go their own separate ways and find others
with whom they can get along. But the labour movement just doesn't see
it that way.

When unionized employees vote to strike against an employer, they're
admitting by their action that their relationship with that employer
is no longer satisfactory to them. But if that's the case, why hang
around? Why not do the right thing and look for greener pastures
elsewhere?

Can anyone offer me a logical reason why some guy who isn't happy with
his job should have a "right" to it? Can anyone explain why the guy
who would be happy with that job shouldn't have a right to compete for
it? Does this make any sense at all?

The labour movement insists that its monopoly on the employer-employee
relationship is necessary so that employers will "bargain in good
faith."

Now that's the biggest contradiction of them all! How on earth can
anyone in his right mind claim to be "negotiating in good faith" when
one of the parties in the negotiations has no right to negotiate with
others? What's left to "negotiate"?

That unions exercise legalized coercion as their method of
"negotiating" is nothing new to those of us who believe in individual
freedom. What is astonishing is how so much of the Canadian public,
despite being aware of it, tacitly accepts this coercion --- and
sometimes even outright violence --- as inevitable and legitimate
aspects of the labour movement.

Our laws do not prevent the use of this coercion. Instead, our labour
laws institute, sanction, and enforce it. Explicit in every union
action from initial certification to its "negotiating" philosophy and
ultimately to its political advocacies is the use of coercion and the
denial of freedom of choice to anyone who does not agree with its
militant labour stance.

Legalized coercion is the tool of the labour movement. Mutual consent
is the target of its destruction.

It's coercion when individuals are forced to join a union against
their will just because a "majority" votes for it. Don't minorities
have any rights? Should the rest of us just stand back and keep
swallowing the old union line that it represents its members when we
all know that union methods of recruitment depend on the word
mandatory?

Just ask Merv Lavigne what he thinks about union coercion. Ask him how
he felt about being forced to fund political causes he doesn't even
agree with.

Or, if you prefer, talk to Dolly Foran of the Arlington Crane Company
in Hamilton, a company she supposedly "owns" --- only she's not
allowed to choose who works for her. Because of union coercion, she is
only permitted to hire unionized labour and can't even hire her own
nephew.

It's coercion that the labour movement supports by arguing that
Toronto furrier Paul Magder shouldn't have the legal right to open his
store on a Sunday. Or that Bob Stollery of Eastway Ford in St. Thomas
shouldn't be allowed to sell his cars on a Sunday.

Why should the labour movement care? You'd think it would be happy at
the employment opportunities and jobs created. But no. Because
plentiful employment and jobs are not the goal of any movement
dedicated to maintaining a labour monopoly.

Which explains why the labour movement detests the independence of the
particular individuals I've mentioned. After all, what is it that Bob
Stollery, Paul Magder, Dolly Foran, and Merv Lavigne really want?

Simple. The right to choose the terms of their own relationships. The
right to consent to their relationships.

And isn't that really what all of us want and need? Is that so much to
ask?

Too much, it seems, for the labour movement.

But the use of union coercion doesn't end with labour. Unions also
advocate business monopolies.

For example, Canada's postal unions are fully aware that their
influence on Canada Post represents a handicap to the business. They
know that if the consumer had a choice to go elsewhere for postal
service at competitive rates, their members would be out of a job.

So in order to compensate for the damage they do to the business
(apparently you can bite the hand that feeds you; just don't bite it
off!), unions must resort to advocating forced relationships in the
marketplace as well. In other words, organized labour must advocate
business monopolies.

So, far from being opposed to business monopolies, as so many people
believe, unions are explicit and uncompromising supporters of business
monopolies.

A classic example occurred during the recent provincial election when
both management and labour of Labatts Breweries staged a public
protest against free trade in the brewery industry.

Citing the fact that Canadian brewers were only "75% as efficient" as
their American counterparts (an embarrasing admission, when you stop
to think about it), both labour and management were successful at
having the brewery industry exempted from the free trade negotiations.

When both business and labour combine forces to argue that their
inefficiency is a good reason to force Canadians to pay them higher
prices, and when our governments go along with it, then you can be
pretty sure that we're all in a lot of trouble.

The question begging to be asked is just how did our breweries become
so uncompetitive in the first place? Ironically, because of the very
protectionism they lobbied to keep. Does anybody honestly believe that
more protectionism is going to improve the brewery industry's
inefficiency?

While there doesn't seem to be much common sense behind arguments
supporting protectionism, it sure is easy to understand the motivation
behind it.

Because it has not been seen in its true philosophical light,
organized labour has been falsely credited with being the primary
cause behind the over-all improved working conditions, wages, and
standard of living that the common worker has become accustomed to
over the past half century.

And that's ironic. Because economic freedom, coupled with the capital
and technology that were created as its consequence, is the real
reason that the common worker's standard of living has improved. And
guess what? That's the very thing the labour movement is against.

If, after all, unions have anything to do with the creation of wealth,
then it follows that an impoverished nation like Bangladesh could
solve its standard of living problems simply by unionizing all the
labour in the country.

Of course, we all know that wouldn't happen. In fact, the standard of
living in the country would certainly drop. Unions can only coercively
redistribute existing wealth, not increase it. Ironically, unions can
only perpetuate their parasitic existence in the few Western nations
that still boast some semblance of semi-free economies.

You won't find any major strikes or collective bargaining going on in
black Africa, most of Asia, or in communist countries because they
have so little wealth to redistribute to national labour in the first
place. And what little wealth does exist is already being
"redistributed" by their governments.

It's time we took our blinders off and stopped pretending that
"organized labour" is a pro-labour movement at all. It is, in fact, a
profoundly anti-labour movement, much more dedicated to its ideology
(of "suppressing individual needs") than to the best long-term
interest of workers in the marketplace.

For that reason, Freedom Party is about to embark on an incredible
task: we intend to challenge the very root of the labour mythology on
which organized labour depends to get its support.

Among the myths:

• That unions raise our standard of living;
• That unions are "democratically" run;
• That strikes are a legitimate way to "bargain in good faith";
• That compulsion and force are a necessary means to achieve positive
results;
• That unions are in favour of more jobs;
• That unions are against business monopolies;
• That unions "protect" their members against unsafe working
conditions;
• That unions "represent" their membership, or for that matter,
"workers" in general;
• That unions are necessary to counter a concentration of power in the
hands of business or government;
• That unions protect the "little guy" in society;
• That unions "were necessary at one time", but have now simply become
"too big and powerful".

And the myths go on and on.

But in order to launch a successful educational campaign against this
union mythology, we can't afford to adopt a half-hearted philosophical
approach to the labour issue. Any hesitation on our part about
attacking the fundamental premise of unions (i.e., that coercion is a
legitimate element in labour relations) will amount to nothing more
than a tacit approval of their actions and their political goals.

You can't win a philosophical debate in the long-run by saying that
"Unions would be OK if they just weren't so ________." (You can fill
in the blank.)

There's a lot more involved with advocating freedom in labour
relations than trying to illustrate the practical shortcomings of
organized labour's goals. There's a deeper reason why its philosophy
doesn't work in practice. Unions by their very structure, nature, and
definition are wrong, and this point must be made clear to everyone
involved in the issue.

And that's what make it such a scary challenge.

To a lot of people, suggesting that you're "against unions" is
interpreted as being against the right to voluntarily organize a
labour association. Far from it. Because if there's one thing that a
union isn't, it's a voluntary association.

We have to start looking at unions and the labour movement for what
they are, not what we'd like them to be --- or what they "could be"
--- if only they were "run properly", or "weren't so violent."

It just isn't so.

Until the term "voluntary" is re-instated as the fundamental element
underlying all labour relations, labour itself will continue to be the
biggest loser in what can only ever be a continuing political conflict
between "organized" labour and competitive labour.

And that's the truth behind the labour movement.
Jack Plant

"http://www.freedomparty.org"

RES

unread,

May 18, 2001, 11:10:39 AM5/18/01

to

Jack Plant wrote:
>
> THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT
>
> Originally published in:
>
> Freedom Flyer 11
>
> the official newsletter of the
> Freedom Party of Ontario
>
> November 1987
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Fp President r Robert Metz
>
> If there's one thing I've had drummed into me over the past several
> months, it's this:
>
> The public hates unions.
>

Was this done by Chinese water torture, or by brain washing? RES

> Except for a small core of ideologically radical supporters, almost
> everyone has something bad to say about unions. The reasons for hating
> unions are many and varied, but the feeling sure is familiar.
>

Just because you hate unions doesn't mean everyone else does. RES

> "They should all be shot!" is a frequently-expressed sentiment. "Lazy
> bums" is another. "Why should they be going on strike when they make
> so much more than the rest of us?" is the number one complaint.
>

Idiot. RES

> Yet, despite all the complaining, broad public acceptance of unions
> --- as legitimate political and bargaining agents --- still persists.
> How come?
>

They are legitimate and democratic expressions of workers' rights. How's
that for starters? RES

> I think the reason has something to do with this: You see, too few of
> us really know what's going on behind the labour movement. Hardly
> anybody really understands the issue.
>

Is it the International Zionist Conspiracy behind labour unions?
<sarcasm> RES

> Just what is it that the labour movement wants? What is it really
> after? Why is it that everything the labour movement wants has to be
> achieved by forcing everybody else to go along? Why can't it achieve
> its goals through reasoned advocacy and mutual consent?
>

You are advocating the opposite here. Good thing these rights are
protected by law and by international covenant. RES

> Why won't the "labour movement" play fair?
>
> "Without adding collective bargaining principles to the Charter of
> Rights and Freedoms," announced CUPE's president, Jeff Rose, "unions
> may lose the right to negotiate mandatory union membership. To bargain
> successfully," he concluded, "individual needs have to be suppressed
> to serve the needs of the majority."
>
> But "suppressing the needs of the individual in order to serve the
> needs of the majority" is precisely what leaders of fascist,
> communist, socialist, and many of the eastern and third world
> countries have been advocating and are practicing today. And you can
> only suppress the needs of the individual by suppressing individual
> rights.
>

You are delibrately misinterpreting these remarks. The individual does
not have the right to suppress the rights of the majority when their
rights are not affected. RES

> Any group, association, or union that can't recognize the principle of
> individual rights isn't an "association", but a gang or mob --- or
> worse.
>

Gary Smith

unread,

May 18, 2001, 9:06:37 PM5/18/01

to

Jack Plant wrote:

> THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

> And that's the truth behind the labour movement.

snipped

>
> Jack Plant
>
> "http://www.freedomparty.org"

The Freedom party of Ontario got 4806 votes in the 99 elections, 4532 in 95,
an alltime high of 6015 in 90 and 4735 in 87. It seems a lot of people in
Ontario really agree with you, Jack Plant. Hardly seems like enough for a
bowel movement. And thats the truth about the freedom party.

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 19, 2001, 4:17:17 PM5/19/01

to

Gary Smith (csm...@crrstv.net) wrote:
<snipped for fast, fast, fast relief of neo-con bullshit pain>

: The Freedom party of Ontario got 4806 votes in the 99 elections, 4532

: in 95, an alltime high of 6015 in 90 and 4735 in 87. It seems a lot of
: people in Ontario really agree with you, Jack Plant. Hardly seems like
: enough for a bowel movement. And thats the truth about the freedom
: party.

People from all parts of Canada, not just Ontario, loath Jack's fascist
party. They are "un-Canadian" and represent a kind of ideology that is
foreign not only to Canada, but also the United States and all of North
and South America. Jack's ideology comes from the fascist right of Europe
of the 1930's, the same bunch that started World War II.

Left unchecked, and given power over others, Jack and his kind would lead
us into that same deadly abyss. His ideas, like all fascist and communist
ideology, is not only wrong, its also dangerous. It needs to be dealt with
firmly and stopped.

Joe Green

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,

May 19, 2001, 6:47:46 PM5/19/01

to

Although I agree with your sentiments in general concerning the so
called 'Freedom Party' your statement "It needs to be dealt with
firmly and stopped" is interesting, considering it implies the same
kind of fascist thinking you're accussing the Freedom Party of
representing.
>
>

nkennedy

unread,

May 19, 2001, 7:17:34 PM5/19/01

to

A report out of Alberta today said that Deborah Gray is ready to
move to the group of CA MPs who want Stockwell Day to resign. The report
also stated that about 20 CA members are ready to follow her out of the
CA caucus.
This will bring about an interesting set of numbers. With 65
members any faction of CA members with 33 members becomes the biggest
conservative group in the house. But unless one group can get more than
37 supporters, the BQ with 38 members becomes the official opposition.
This possibility ought to be enough to move all the "red neck"
element that are now giving Day "blind loyalty" to reconsider their
position.
Oh its all such great fun!

Neil K

The Doctor

unread,

May 19, 2001, 7:55:59 PM5/19/01

to

In article <3B06FF0E...@seascape.ns.ca>,

Is the source reliable?
--
God Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
Never Satan President and Republic This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Republics must dissolve. .mu is for Mauritius NOT for worldwide Music; Mauritius rise up againgt the invasion.
mu c'est L'ile Maurice PAS Musique Internationale; Mauriciens dit non a l'invasion!

badbeta

unread,

May 19, 2001, 8:08:55 PM5/19/01

to

CBC...you decide about the reliablility. :-)~
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/05/19/alliance010519

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 19, 2001, 10:26:43 PM5/19/01

to

E. Barry Bruyea (sha...@dusk.com) wrote:

Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage
that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country. All
driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
leadership, that can only lead to war.

If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
taking power!. Its the ideology!

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 19, 2001, 10:33:07 PM5/19/01

to

E. Barry Bruyea (sha...@dusk.com) wrote:

One other thing, just to leave no doubt. When fascists and communists
create conditions that massively violate human rights and the required
conditions that underpin civilization (as for example the
fascists/communists of Milosovic did in Serbia/Yugoslavia) then the rest
of the world has not only a right, but a duty to intervene and stop the
carnage, bloodshed, and the abuse that flows from such monsters. Its not
"illiberal" to suppress this kind of anarchy and chaos.

Liberals always wring their hands in the face of such hard choises, but
they need to be clear headed. Its either that NOW, or much worse LATER.

Make no mistake. History teaches one solid lesson about
fascists/communists/capitalists. They ALL hate human rights, they all hate
democracy in real terms, and they all hate liberty and freedom.

There is nothing quite so hypocritical as a communist touting "freedom",
or a capitalist touting "democracy" or a fascist touting the "rule of
law". For all of them, their ideas are perversions, not useful political
notions worthy of debate. And yes, they really are the enemy of real
people that treasure freedom and independence, social order and grace, and
civil discourse and democracy.

Joe Green

EricĐ

unread,

May 19, 2001, 10:50:34 PM5/19/01

to

Edmonton's 'Crazy' Joe Green (hifl...@ecn.ab.ca) wrote...

> Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
> Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage
> that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country.

There is no such thing as "Sudenanland".

If you are referring to 'Sudetenland'; Hitler was not "in" there in 1932.

There were no "Allied Countries" in 1932.

> All driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
> leadership, that can only lead to war.

> If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
> kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
> taking power!. Its the ideology!

Your ideology is no different. You've posted in the past that the police
should immediately raid the homes of nonconformist gun owners, and seize
their long guns. This would entail a massive police action on a scale
not seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin were in power.

Once again I labour to point out to the group that you are wrong. You're
almost always wrong, 'Crazy'. Your historical 'facts' are a mish-mash of
ill-informed twaddle. Your politics are so extreme that even the most
radical leftists on the group will not support your ideas.

E.Schild
haff...@usa.net

Jack Plant

unread,

May 19, 2001, 10:53:04 PM5/19/01

to

On 19 May 2001 19:26:43 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

>
>Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
>Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage
>that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country. All
>driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
>leadership, that can only lead to war.
>
>If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
>kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
>taking power!. Its the ideology!
>

So Joe,...tell me....what have I ,..or Freedom Party done that is
comparable to Hitler's takeover of the Sudetenland??
"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

Jack Plant

unread,

May 19, 2001, 11:03:25 PM5/19/01

to

On 19 May 2001 19:33:07 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

>
>One other thing, just to leave no doubt. When fascists and communists
>create conditions that massively violate human rights and the required
>conditions that underpin civilization (as for example the
>fascists/communists of Milosovic did in Serbia/Yugoslavia) then the rest
>of the world has not only a right, but a duty to intervene and stop the
>carnage, bloodshed, and the abuse that flows from such monsters. Its not
>"illiberal" to suppress this kind of anarchy and chaos.
>
>Liberals always wring their hands in the face of such hard choises, but
>they need to be clear headed. Its either that NOW, or much worse LATER.
>
>Make no mistake. History teaches one solid lesson about
>fascists/communists/capitalists. They ALL hate human rights, they all hate
>democracy in real terms, and they all hate liberty and freedom.
>
>There is nothing quite so hypocritical as a communist touting "freedom",
>or a capitalist touting "democracy" or a fascist touting the "rule of
>law". For all of them, their ideas are perversions, not useful political
>notions worthy of debate. And yes, they really are the enemy of real
>people that treasure freedom and independence, social order and grace, and
>civil discourse and democracy.
>

I'm surprised at you speaking of "civil discourse and democracy."
because you don't seem to know much about it.

Freedom Party's "statement of principle" says : "Every individual, in
the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfillment, has an absolute right to
his or her own life, liberty, and property." How does that square
with fascism and communism Joe??

We also "believe that individual rights, the right to private
property, and the legal protection of our fundamental freedoms are the
keys to a free, united, and prosperous nation. Equality for all;
special status for none. " How does that square with fascism??

We also "that the exercise of free choice belongs only to the
individual --- and that it's the government's job to keep it that way"

How does that square with your contentions about Fp joe??

We also believe that there is no place in a free society for the
"initiation" of force on any individual. Can you tell me where Hitler
said anything like that Joe?? Maybe Stalin did eh?? I must have
missed it.

"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

Jack Plant

unread,

May 19, 2001, 11:07:39 PM5/19/01

to

On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:47:46 GMT, sha...@dusk.com (E. Barry Bruyea)
wrote:

>
>
>Although I agree with your sentiments in general concerning the so
>called 'Freedom Party' your statement "It needs to be dealt with
>firmly and stopped" is interesting, considering it implies the same
>kind of fascist thinking you're accussing the Freedom Party of
>representing.
>>
>>

You agree with his"sentiments in general concerning the so
called 'Freedom Party' "??? ...bummer... I'm disappointed (truly).

Could you tell me why??

"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

Jack Plant

unread,

May 19, 2001, 11:09:01 PM5/19/01

to

On 19 May 2001 19:33:07 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

oh,...and another thing "Joe".. The last thing that we here at
Freedom Party want is "power over people"!
"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,

May 20, 2001, 1:02:17 AM5/20/01

to

In article <3b07...@ecn.ab.ca>, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> ...

>Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
>Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage

hitler wasn't even in power in 1932, and didn't do anything intil 1938/9

>that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country. All
>driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
>leadership, that can only lead to war.
>
>If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
>kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
>taking power!. Its the ideology!

why don't you let them spew their garbage. at least we know where the
idiots sit

--

hs

----------------------------------------------------------------

"The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
can have national pride" - Schopenhauer

E. Barry Bruyea

unread,

May 20, 2001, 6:39:44 AM5/20/01

to

On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:50:34 -0700, EricĐ <EricĐ@hardknocks.edu>
wrote:

Green in fact thinks in the manner to which he accuses the
Fascist/Communist/Capitalist of doing. A government of the nature
that exists in Green's dreams (our nightmares) is a frightening
thought.

Steve Marskell

unread,

May 20, 2001, 10:32:45 AM5/20/01

to

Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>
> In article <3b07...@ecn.ab.ca>, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > ...
> >Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
> >Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage
>
> hitler wasn't even in power in 1932, and didn't do anything intil 1938/9

Hitler gained office in January 1933.

.....Consolidation of his power soon followed.....

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
> characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
> can have national pride" - Schopenhauer

--
--->
------> Football is over for another year.......boo hoo!

Pierre Bastien

unread,

May 20, 2001, 12:40:45 PM5/20/01

to

"Steve Marskell" <smar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B07D59E...@home.com...

>
>
> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> >
> > In article <3b07...@ecn.ab.ca>, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > > ...
> > >Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures
against
> > >Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided
the carnage
> >
> > hitler wasn't even in power in 1932, and didn't do anything intil
1938/9
>
> Hitler gained office in January 1933.
>
> .....Consolidation of his power soon followed.....
>

Most of the writers I have read (Shirer for example) seem to agree
that if France and England had reacted to the remilitarization of the
Rhineland in 1936, Hitler would have lost power then and there.

--
Pierre
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

Jack Plant

unread,

May 20, 2001, 1:45:44 PM5/20/01

to

On 20 May 2001 01:02:17 -0400, h...@paradise.nirvananet (Hartmann
Schaffer) wrote:

>In article <3b07...@ecn.ab.ca>, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> ...

>>If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some

>>kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
>>taking power!. Its the ideology!
>
>why don't you let them spew their garbage. at least we know where the
>idiots sit
>

Why do you call us idiots Hartmann??

"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 2:46:54 PM5/20/01

to

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

Nothing yet, and that is the way folks in Ontario and Canada want to keep
it.

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 3:10:12 PM5/20/01

to

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

: On 19 May 2001 19:33:07 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

: >
: >One other thing, just to leave no doubt. When fascists and communists
: >create conditions that massively violate human rights and the required
: >conditions that underpin civilization (as for example the
: >fascists/communists of Milosovic did in Serbia/Yugoslavia) then the rest
: >of the world has not only a right, but a duty to intervene and stop the
: >carnage, bloodshed, and the abuse that flows from such monsters. Its not
: >"illiberal" to suppress this kind of anarchy and chaos.
: >
: >Liberals always wring their hands in the face of such hard choises, but
: >they need to be clear headed. Its either that NOW, or much worse LATER.
: >
: >Make no mistake. History teaches one solid lesson about
: >fascists/communists/capitalists. They ALL hate human rights, they all hate
: >democracy in real terms, and they all hate liberty and freedom.
: >
: >There is nothing quite so hypocritical as a communist touting "freedom",
: >or a capitalist touting "democracy" or a fascist touting the "rule of
: >law". For all of them, their ideas are perversions, not useful political
: >notions worthy of debate. And yes, they really are the enemy of real
: >people that treasure freedom and independence, social order and grace, and
: >civil discourse and democracy.
: >

: I'm surprised at you speaking of "civil discourse and democracy."
: because you don't seem to know much about it.

Why are you surprised??? Civil discourse and democracy is really the only
way open to societies that wish to avoid warfare in the pursuit of its
common public policies. Its a preference most intelligent people will
make, but it does not follow that it is obvious to everyone. Just look at
the Libertarian Mammon worshippers at the Objectivist Church for example.

: Freedom Party's "statement of principle" says : "Every individual, in

: the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfillment, has an absolute right to
: his or her own life, liberty, and property." How does that square
: with fascism and communism Joe??

Its the "extremism" that your "statement of principle" carries with it.
Such things as "absolute right", or "special status for none" for example.
There is no such thing as an "absolute right", although we have invented
the notion of "inalienable right" that comes close, BUT ONLY FOR CIVILIZED
SOCIETIES THAT RECOGNIZE SUCH A STANDARD. An individual has NO SAY in this
matter, its a choise for the COMMUNITY TO MAKE ABOUT ITS OWN STANDARDS.

: We also "believe that individual rights, the right to private

: property, and the legal protection of our fundamental freedoms are the
: keys to a free, united, and prosperous nation. Equality for all;
: special status for none. " How does that square with fascism??

Well you are not prepared to adopt the same principle to the economic
sphere for example, as the communists do. You decry such policy as one
that makes everyone poor. And your rigid attitude regarding "special
status for none" is plainly untenable for a democratic society. Such
societies cannot exist without doctors, lawyers and engineers who give the
society a framework of expertise to function within, and these professions
are plainly made up of individuals who enjoy "special status" by virtue of
their training and experience.

: We also "that the exercise of free choice belongs only to the

: individual --- and that it's the government's job to keep it that way"

Well do lawful assemblies of individuals not count? If a Church filled
with Objectivists wish to purchase a city lot and build a Church devoted
to Ayn Rand, does this group not have the legal right to do so in their
own right, with limited liability for each of the Church members? Or does
this situation require that each member acquire unlimited liability for
the follies of its High Priestess???

: How does that square with your contentions about Fp joe??

Well the Freedom Party, like the Communist Party, say one thing, and
promotes another. What the Freedom Party says is that it stands for
"freedom" but it promotes "economic slavery" for the vast majority of
Canadians. The Communists did the same thing. There is no qualitative
difference. Only the Propaganda varies to suit the occassion. No sensible
person should believe either of them.

: We also believe that there is no place in a free society for the

: "initiation" of force on any individual.

Well that is what you say, but Rand says she believes the state has the
right to initiate the use of force against law breakers and criminals. The
Laws of Canada, say that the State does not have such authority or power.
But fascists all accept this view.

: Can you tell me where Hitler

: said anything like that Joe?? Maybe Stalin did eh?? I must have
: missed it.

Well Hitler stated his entire mad nightmare for Europe in his book Mein
Kampf. Read it and learn about the deranged mind of a fascist. And if you
wish to learn something about the mind of a communist, read the writings
of Lenin. Its actually an eye opener.

As for Marx and Rand, read Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged. Both expose the
uncivilized and brutish notions that Hitler and Stalin later utilized in
Europe. Their ideas took hold because both stated that they were "free" of
traditional moral restraint. The result was carnage, the blood that flowed
was always red, and the results were the exactly the same for both
"theories". For the Jews of Europe, the terrible irony is that Marx and
Rand, both being Jews, gave the means to Hitler and Stalin for the near
mass extinction of European Jewry.

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 3:11:51 PM5/20/01

to

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

: On 19 May 2001 19:33:07 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

: <snipped>

: oh,...and another thing "Joe".. The last thing that we here at
: Freedom Party want is "power over people"!

That is what Hitler also said when he came to power in 1932 with the
support of German Conservatives.

Why should anyone believe that a leopard changes his spots?

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 3:22:42 PM5/20/01

to

Hartmann Schaffer (h...@paradise.nirvananet) wrote:

: In article <3b07...@ecn.ab.ca>, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
: > ...
: >Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
: >Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage

: hitler wasn't even in power in 1932, and didn't do anything intil 1938/9

Let me correct this. There is a spelling mistake in my original post.
"Sudenanland" should have been spelled "Sudetanland". My date was
incorrect. Hitler came to power in 1932, with the aid and support of
German Conservatives and Industrialists who thought they could control
him. He invaded the Sudetenland, but later in defiance of the Treaty that
ended WWI. The Allied Countries (France, American and Britain) did
nothing about the violations, which included an arms buildup in violation
of the Treaty by the Nazis.

: >that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country. All

: >driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
: >leadership, that can only lead to war.
: >
: >If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
: >kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
: >taking power!. Its the ideology!

: why don't you let them spew their garbage. at least we know where the
: idiots sit

You have a problem dealing with the material, because it accurately
portaits the real position of the Freedom Party. It says, "peace, peace".
But there is no peace. Only war.

: ----------------------------------------------------------------

: "The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
: characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
: can have national pride" - Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer came from an era and a location where there was nothing to be
proud of in the national sense. Think about it.

And right wing lunatics wish to draw inspiration from this perspective of
failure. Think about that!

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 3:38:55 PM5/20/01

to

E. Barry Bruyea (sha...@dusk.com) wrote:

: On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:50:34 -0700, EricĐ <EricĐ@hardknocks.edu>
: wrote:

: >Edmonton's 'Crazy' Joe Green (hifl...@ecn.ab.ca) wrote...
: >
: >> Have it your way. Had the Allied Countries taken firm measures against
: >> Hitler in Sudenanland in 1932, they may very well have avoided the carnage
: >> that began in earnest as the Nazi invaded country after country.
: >
: >There is no such thing as "Sudenanland".
: >
: >If you are referring to 'Sudetenland'; Hitler was not "in" there in 1932.
: >
: >There were no "Allied Countries" in 1932.
: >
: >> All driven of course by the kind of "me first" attitude in the Nazi
: >> leadership, that can only lead to war.
: >
: >> If you look at the attitude of Jack's Freedom Party, it would start some
: >> kind of a war somewhere on earth involving Canada within six months of
: >> taking power!. Its the ideology!
: >
: >Your ideology is no different. You've posted in the past that the police
: >should immediately raid the homes of nonconformist gun owners, and seize
: >their long guns. This would entail a massive police action on a scale
: >not seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin were in power.

What I did state is that in my view, there is no legitimate need for
firearms during peacetime AT ALL, (except perhaps in remote areas of the
country where there is legitimate needs for hunting by native
communities).

It is also my view that the gun laws that enjoy the support of over 70% of
the population need to be enforced with the same even handed vigor that we
enforce other laws, such as theft, bank robbery, fraud and so forth.

And the fact that so many right wing extremists identify their gonads
with their guns, is no reason to back off and make not advance the public
safety by removing lethal guns from general circulation.

: >
: >Once again I labour to point out to the group that you are wrong. You're

: >almost always wrong, 'Crazy'. Your historical 'facts' are a mish-mash of
: >ill-informed twaddle. Your politics are so extreme that even the most
: >radical leftists on the group will not support your ideas.

Sorry but no cigar. When I am mistaken or in error, I am more than willing
to admit it, and correct it. I have never claimed infallability or error
free logic the way Libertarians and Objectivists do.

I am a human being that rejects "ideology" as "suspect", trusting neither
the left nor the right, and gauging each circumstance from the perspective
of my own moral compass.

I say its wrong for some to amass such excesses that other go wanting, and
I say its wrong to homogenize society in order to correct this previous
wrong. That is hardly "Crazy", on the contrary, its "Sane". What is
"Crazy" is the belief held by most right wing ideologs, that "money"
actually accomplishes anything. And what is "Crazy" is the belief held by
most left wing ideologs, that "economic freedom" can only be found by
homogenizing society irrespective of an individuals God given talent and
skill.

: >
: >E.Schild
: >haff...@usa.net

: Green in fact thinks in the manner to which he accuses the
: Fascist/Communist/Capitalist of doing. A government of the nature
: that exists in Green's dreams (our nightmares) is a frightening
: thought.

No that is incorrect. I think clearly from my own perspective of both an
individual and a member of society. Both aspects of my life are important.

I am glad however that I am the worst nightmare of Capitalists, Communists
and Fascists. At least we understand each other. As long as lunatics like
Jack Plant sit on the side lines with less then 6,000 votes, there will be
no violence. If he makes a dash for the levers of power, there will be a
violent reaction. Just so that you whores know and understand.

Joe Green

Jack Plant

unread,

May 20, 2001, 5:07:25 PM5/20/01

to

On 20 May 2001 12:38:55 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

>E. Barry Bruyea (sha...@dusk.com) wrote:
>: On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:50:34 -0700, EricĐ <EricĐ@hardknocks.edu>
>: wrote:
>

>: >

>: >Your ideology is no different. You've posted in the past that the police
>: >should immediately raid the homes of nonconformist gun owners, and seize
>: >their long guns. This would entail a massive police action on a scale
>: >not seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin were in power.
>
>What I did state is that in my view, there is no legitimate need for
>firearms during peacetime AT ALL, (except perhaps in remote areas of the
>country where there is legitimate needs for hunting by native
>communities).
>

What about "self-defence" Joe?

>: >
>: >Once again I labour to point out to the group that you are wrong. You're
>: >almost always wrong, 'Crazy'. Your historical 'facts' are a mish-mash of
>: >ill-informed twaddle. Your politics are so extreme that even the most
>: >radical leftists on the group will not support your ideas.

way Libertarians and Objectivists do.
>
>I am a human being that rejects "ideology"

You "reject" "ideology"??

What about YOUR ideology"??

Do you reject THAT too??

"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

Jack Plant

unread,

May 20, 2001, 5:10:52 PM5/20/01

to

Nothing yet?? OK,..so, if we were elected (just to deal in
hypotheticals, if your "ideology" allows) what do you see us doing
that would be like hitler,..we disavow the use of force,...except for
defensive purposes,..so where is the threat Joe??
"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 7:44:21 PM5/20/01

to

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

: On 20 May 2001 12:38:55 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

: >E. Barry Bruyea (sha...@dusk.com) wrote:
: >: On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:50:34 -0700, EricĐ <EricĐ@hardknocks.edu>
: >: wrote:
: >

: >: >
: >: >Your ideology is no different. You've posted in the past that the police
: >: >should immediately raid the homes of nonconformist gun owners, and seize
: >: >their long guns. This would entail a massive police action on a scale
: >: >not seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin were in power.
: >
: >What I did state is that in my view, there is no legitimate need for
: >firearms during peacetime AT ALL, (except perhaps in remote areas of the
: >country where there is legitimate needs for hunting by native
: >communities).
: >

: What about "self-defence" Joe?

Your best "self defence" mechanism is a functioning brain. You do not have
to challenge armed thugs directly, particularly when you are not in a good
position to challenge them.

Most police forces advise NOT to challenge bank robbers, but to give them
the money or goods. These can in most circumstances be recovered, either
directly or by insurance. What most people need to do is always stay
alert, and always have a plan for unforseen eventualities. Like a pilot
flying across country always picking out his next emergency landing spot.

Now I know that does not appeal to you and the NRA, but statistics show
that this is a far safer course of action, to essentially avoid
confrontation if at all possible.

The next line of defence is to consider alternatives that have the same
effect of getting away from a thug, either by running, or tricking or
doing something unexpected.

Again, a functioning brian is the best self defence tool, vastly superior
to gonads and guns.

And this will also work in much the same way with unexpected
confrontations with wolves and bears.

Guns and knives are crutches for people who lack confidence in their own
abilities. The answer is to take some courses that build confidence and
strength.

And of course there are many obvious psychological tools, such as posture,
motion, and noise, shouts, and growls, all of which have useful function
in defending oneself against thugs, assailants and "neo-cons".

: >: >

: >: >Once again I labour to point out to the group that you are wrong. You're
: >: >almost always wrong, 'Crazy'. Your historical 'facts' are a mish-mash of
: >: >ill-informed twaddle. Your politics are so extreme that even the most
: >: >radical leftists on the group will not support your ideas.
: >: >way Libertarians and Objectivists do.
: >
: >I am a human being that rejects "ideology"

: You "reject" "ideology"??

I reject all "doctrinare ideology" that permits individuals to ignore the
bonds of traditional morality. Yes indeed I do.

: What about YOUR ideology"??

My "ideology" is based upon moderation, scepticism, openess, democracy,
respect for tradition and values that are enduring in all cultures, and to
actively engage in violence when there is no other option open to defend
oneself, ones family and ones community. There is no other way to deal
with violent people, except with the intelligent application of force and
violence, the so-called military arts.

: Do you reject THAT too??

Yes, I reject all "extremism" in "ideology" that tries to "fetter"
rational thinking and judgement.

Meeting violence with violence is not "extremism" as much as it is
resignation to certain aspects of our existance. Human history is littered
with examples of where conflicts could be resolved in no other way. This
condition is called "war", and it almost always arises in history from
political radicalism of the type that lies at the very foundations of the
Freedom Party.

Joe Green

Jack Plant

unread,

May 20, 2001, 6:54:05 PM5/20/01

to

What about when someone with a gun tries to kill you Joe? Do you
think "body posture" and an imaginative brain will help you then?

...and , by the way Joe,.. It isn't "political radicalism" per se
that causes war. It's BAD "political radicalism" that causes it.

Would you say that political radicalism in favour of "the good" is
bad? And please don't argue with me about the concept of "the good".
I'm talking about the objective good beyond what anyone may "think" is
the good. In that case would you saying that being radically good is
bad?

"http://www.freedomparty.org/fpexec01.htm"

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 7:58:04 PM5/20/01

to

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

Your word is no good and has no currency. Neither did Hitler or Stalin
have a word that was any good or that had currency.

Your disavowal of the use of force is a lie. You are capitalists in sheeps
clothing. You will "allow" Canadian based multinational companies to
operate abroad using Canada as a home base. You will allow them to export
capital, manpower, equipment, supplies and money to foreign countries
where they will "exploit" local conditions for a "profit". The local
citizens are helpless to resist such "competition" seen to be "invading"
their country.

If this escalating conflict is settled peacefully, the invaded country is
forced to capitulate to Canadian capitalists seeking to exploit their
country. If it is not settled peacefully (and increasingly these are not
settled peacefully) hostilities break out, as it recently did in Columbia
and and Peru involving the kidnapping of Canadian citizens working for
these multinational firms.

Canada is forced to respond, first with resources, aid and then military
force. Often this escalates to multinational force involving troops from
many countries to defend the multinational invaders in the first instance.
Thus, seen from our side, its a "defensive" action taken to protect
Canadian nationals on the point of the multinational invasion. From the
host countries point of view, they are defending their homelands. Who can
blame them?

But in the end, the real whores that fund multinationals are not in the
jungles dying along side their workers in this invasion. They are in the
Board rooms in Calgary and Toronto planning how to avoid paying for the
human losses their business decisions have created for both Canadian and
Columbian and Peruvian families.

Since you and the Freedom Party support unrestricted market capitalism and
the kind of invasions (above), it follows that you would get us into these
types of situations very quickly and in many places all at once. We do not
have the resources to fight all these fights and we lack the moral
authority to wage these proxy wars for Canadian multinational companies.

This all comes about from the lawless nature of a multinational company.
They exist to circumvent or break laws. That is why they are
multi-national companies in the first place. Legitimate business
incorporates itself within the nation state that it wishes to operate in,
and it works and lives within that Nation State as a "good corporate
citizen". But these today are in a minority.

Joe Green

hifl...@ecn.ab.ca

unread,

May 20, 2001, 10:17:40 PM5/20/01

to

ecn.ab.ca> <3b0831a0...@news.bay-net.on.ca> <3b08...@ecn.ab.ca>
<3b084a07...@news.bay-net.on.ca>
Organization: Edmonton Community Network
Distribution:

Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

: On 20 May 2001 16:44:21 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:

: >Jack Plant (jpl...@freedomparty.org) wrote:

: >: On 20 May 2001 12:38:55 -0700, hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
: >

: >
: >: Do you reject THAT too??
: >
: >Yes, I reject all "extremism" in "ideology" that tries to "fetter"
: >rational thinking and judgement.
: >
: >Meeting violence with violence is not "extremism" as much as it is
: >resignation to certain aspects of our existance. Human history is littered
: >with examples of where conflicts could be resolved in no other way. This
: >condition is called "war", and it almost always arises in history from
: >political radicalism of the type that lies at the very foundations of the
: >Freedom Party.
: >

: What about when someone with a gun tries to kill you Joe? Do you
: think "body posture" and an imaginative brain will help you then?

The most dangerous man with a gun is a trained soldier who is your enemy
and is determined to kill you. Dealing with this type of killer is the
most important use of "stealth" or "body posture". All others right down
to common criminals is easier and simpler as a rule. Its a pity that most
people do not take the time to learn the simple techniques of dealing with
these low level killers.

Your problem Jack is that you are insecure, and untrained. You can change
that, not by joining some paranoid para military unit of racists and
facists, but by joining the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves, and learning
the proper techniques to deal with killers.

: ...and , by the way Joe,.. It isn't "political radicalism" per se

: that causes war. It's BAD "political radicalism" that causes it.

It is ALWAYS political radicalism that causes war, and it does not matter
much if it comes from the left or the right.

: Would you say that political radicalism in favour of "the good" is

: bad? And please don't argue with me about the concept of "the good".
: I'm talking about the objective good beyond what anyone may "think" is
: the good. In that case would you saying that being radically good is
: bad?

There is no "good" radicalism. Radicalism itself is evil because it is
revolutionary, and all things revolutionary completely give up upon what
has been learned up to that point in time. That includes removing despots
and other undesirables in political leadership.

Your problem with such radical Randian notions of the "good", just as
Marxists have the problem with the "good" is that it is a definition of
values, which are always internal and subjective. Rand is mistaken that
you can have "objective values". These cannot be measured by any credible
scientific method, and that includes psychometics and statistics.

Where all radicals have to go back and begin is simply this point, can you
take all things past that are "good", define them, integrate them into a
frame of reference, and then use that as an "initial condition". You can
then define the "target set" of objectives and values.

Only then, can you intelligently discuss a "path to get there". That is
EVOLUTIONARY, and consistent with a common law history of Western
Civilization. By the way, the "CIVIL LAW" of France and other countries
all are "revolutionary" and they all suffer from discontinuity.

Canada and Britain are NOT REVOLUTIONARY. That is WHY we oppose radical
departures from what sort of works.

Joe Green

RES [reposted because of rogue cancel]