Ultimately, Toronto’s bid to host the games was chosen in November of 2009. Not much has been heard from either side of the Pan Am Games debate since then.

However, the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver have made the 2015 Pan Am Games newsworthy again, especially because of the cost overruns of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games. The Vancouver bid committee’s bid was for a budget of $874M. Some after-the-fact estimates – estimates not coming from elected politicians – peg the actual cost of the games at $6B. As just one example of how utterly dishonest the bid budgets are, the Vancouver Olympic bid budgeted approximately $1.5M for “security”. When all was said and done, security costs came in at $900M: higher that the total budget set out in the Vancouver Olympic bid book.

Toronto Sun editor Rob Granatstein admits that the Pan Am Games in Toronto will not be as grand as the Olympic spectacle was this year. Yet the budget set out in the Toronto Pan Am bid book budget posts costs at $1.4B: almost double the budgeted cost of the Olympics.

Each of these games bids requires that someone take on the financial burden of paying for any expenditures exceeding the budget. BC is on the hook for the massive Olympic cost overruns. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty – with the full support not only of his Liberal MPPs, but of the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party – has agreed that Ontario will shoulder the full burden of any over-budget spending of the 2015 Pan Am Games. This is an agreement made by a government that is currently borrowing about $23B per annum. Accordingly, Ontario will have to borrow to pay any overage.

Even Granatstein agrees that games always cost more than the amount budgeted, and that the 2015 Pan Am Games will go over-budget. How much over-budget? That’s anyone’s guess, because the budgets set out in games bids are always 1 part fact and 9 parts BS. However, if we assume that bid committees under-represent (or err in computing) the actual costs of games by roughly the same percentage then, because an $875M budget turned into an actual cost of $6B for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, it is not unfair to estimate that the $1.4B Toronto Pan Am Games budget indicates an actual cost of about $11.6B (note: the Pan Am Games bid committee originally admitted a budget of $1.7B).

Prompted by a column written a few days ago by Granatstein, he and I were on the John Oakley Show in Toronto this morning (AM 640) to debate the 2015 Pan Am Games. Here’s a recording of it. It should be noted that AM640 is, first and foremost, a sports channel, so the reader might not be too surprised to discover that the two people who called into the show (at least, the only two aired by the show) were in favour of pumping tax revenues into the 2015 Pan Am Games bid. However, my read on things in the general population is that a very healthy percentage – perhaps a majority – of Ontarians do not want the Ontario government to borrow and spend billions of dollars on bailing out the 2015 Pan Am Games. And that’s a hopeful sign in respect of the ethics of Ontario taxpayers: a good percentage of them agree that it is morally wrong to have a party in which everyone raids the neighbour’s beer fridge without his consent.

I expect that the cost of the 2015 Pan Am Games will loom large in Ontario’s 2015 fall General election. At that point, will the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and NDP parties all admit that they agreed to this immoral use of governmental borrowing, taxing and spending power? Or will they conspire to remain mute about the coming boondoggle? Rest assured, no matter what they do, I, and Freedom Party of Ontario, will be a constant reminder that there were many Torontonians, Ontarians, and Canadians in general who opposed the use of tax revenues for the games, and that only Freedom Party and the No Tax for Pan Am Games 2015 campaign fought to oppose such an elaborate misuse of governmental power. Oh: and keep an eye on which land developers and builders contribute to those parties over the next 5 years, because they will be the chief beneficiaries of the money taken out of your child’s university/college savings account.

Your comments on this issue are welcome, as always.

Addendum

The above blog post yesterday caught the interest of Toronto talk radio personality Ryan Doyle (1010 CFRB – Toronto, evenings). At 7:30 PM last night, he had me on his program to discuss the possible cost of the 2015 Pan Am Games. You can listen to it here. Just one note: the $11.6B figure is based not upon the $1.4B number set out in the final bid book of the Toronto Pan Am Games committee, but upon their earlier estimate of $1.7B.

(Truths now lie in parentheses).

Erroneous praise versus thoughtless condemnation or avoidance. The latter alone is inexcusable.

Music to the Hegelians: one hand clapping.

***Media Advisory***

Attention: News/Assignment Editors, Reporters

Marc Emery / Prince of Pot – Extradition

International Release of “THE PRINCIPLE OF POT” Documentary
To Precede Extradition Decision by Canadian Justice Minister

Movie to be released on YouTube.com at
12:01 AM (EST) on Monday, January 18, 2010

Just after midnight tonight, Ontario lawyer Paul McKeever will release Part 1 of “The Principle of Pot”, his new two-part documentary about the nature and motives of Marc Emery, the media-dubbed Prince of Pot. Part 1 runs 1 hour and 39 minutes. Part 2 will be released at a later date.

The launch is timed to precede a decision by Canada’s federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, about whether or not to approve the extradition of Emery to the United States, where he faces years of imprisonment for having sold cannabis seeds, in Vancouver, Canada, via mail order. The Minister’s decision is expected within the next 81 days.

Emery’s opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. Part 1 of McKeever’s documentary will cover the period up to 1990; a period during which Emery was equally active as an advocate of individual freedom, but whose advocacy of individual freedom did not include campaigns concerning the issue of cannabis prohibition.

Being the result of countless hours of research, interviews, writing and editing, the video includes audio, video and textual information that has never been seen in any profile of Emery. Much of the audio and video having been drawn from the archives of Freedom Party of Ontario (with which Emery was active until 1990), it has never before been seen by the general public or media.

What: “The Principle of Pot” (Part 1) – divided into four segments (a playlist will be available)

When: approximately 12:01 AM (EST), Monday, January 18, 2010 (i.e., just after midnight on Sunday)

Where: http://www.youtube.com/paulmckeever (a playlist URL will be made available, and can be embedded on any web site without seeking permission from Paul McKeever to do so)

For further information, contact:

Paul McKeever

Confidential Cell Phone: ***-***-****
e-mail: pm@paulmckeever.ca

Part 1-1: Emery’s birth; early political activity; Ayn Rand and Howard Roark (1979); the Libertarian Party (1980); three publications (1980-1983); Unparty (1981-83); the birth of Freedom Party (1984).

Part 1-2: The No Tax for Pan Am Games campaign (1984); the London garbage strike (1987).

Part 1-3: The campaign against the ban on Sunday retailing 1986-1990); jail (1988).

Part 1-4: The Calendars for Individual Freedom (1987-1989); no to elections / yes to erections (anti-censorship campaigns 1984 and 1989-90); leaving Freedom Party (1990); a new strategy (1990).

This media advisory is being copied to Canada’s government, including Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, to Canada’s Members of Parliament
and to other governmental and non-governmental organizations interested in the matter of Marc Emery, and his possible extradition.

First, Apple told me that they had a problem with my credit card billing address. They said they had two different addresses. The representative said that the matter would have to go to a special department within Apple that deals with verification. Then he mumbled something in the form of: “Hmmm, this one says 459 Johnstone Avenue, Apartment 566, and this other one says 566-459 Johnstone Avenue…that couldn’t be it, could it?”. He wasn’t asking me, he was talking to himself. He then said he would be transferring me to the verification department and that I must leave all of my information or else they won’t do anything and I’ll be “put to the back of the line” or queue or what have you. I left my message and awaited my call-back. I didn’t get one. Instead, I got a cryptic message:

Thank you for your recent order with the Apple Online Store. We appreciate your business.

Action has been taken on your order and we will be shipping to
you at the earliest opportunity. Any prior communications requiring
action can now be disregarded.

Sincerely,
Apple Online Store

Now, this message was entirely ambiguous. I had already received other parts of the order (software and a mouse). And I had spoken with the Apple store probably 3 or 4 times already, and received numerous e-mails from Apple about the order. Which “prior communications” were they referring to? What “action” were they taking. Sure, it might be the verification issue, but the e-mail did not say so. Back on the phone to Apple I went. They confirmed that they had sorted out the verification issue on their end. My bet: yup, the issue was an inability to recognize that 459 Johnstone Avenue, Apartment 566, means the same thing as 566-459 Johnstone Avenue. It wasn’t a big deal, I suppose, but I have a low tolerance for such time-wasting idiocy: I normally bill $200 per hour for my time and I’ll never get that $150 to $300 of my time back from Apple.

Next up: the failure to ship on time. From the beginning, I made it clear to the sales person, and to every rep I’ve spoken with since first contact with Apple, that the Order was time sensitive and urgent. I’m trying to put the final touches on a movie about Marc Emery, a Canadian freedom advocate who is now perhaps hours away from a decision by Canada’s Justice Minister about whether to extradite him to the United States where he would face hard time for selling cannabis seeds…an “offence” that, in Canada, usually is met with a $200 fine. A person selling the quantity of seeds that Emery has sold could face the death penalty, for the exact same botanical offence, in the USA, home of the War on Drugs. I’m trying to get this movie out before it is a done deal, and delays by Apple are not only disappointing, but stressful.

Have a look at the screen grab above (I’ve covered up the order number and moved the Apple Store button into view so that you can see it as well as the Order. My Mac was to have been SHIPPED not later than yesterday, if we allow for the U.S. Thanksgiving as a non-business day. When I called yesterday, I was told that “Well, it is to ARRIVE not later than December 9th, and that still might happen”.

Might? You do know I’ve spent nearly $7,000.00 on this order (including software) right Apple?

An friend of mine in the U.K. suggested that Microsoft might want to make a commercial. He said he wondered if their ordering and inventory system runs on a Mac. Good point, good question, and good campaign idea.

I’ve even got the punchline: iLate.

“why free markets are not to blame”…isn’t that the same reason that fairies are not to blame? A is A.

My initial response was misguided, as was Epstein’s. Like me, he argued that the free market was not to blame because the U.S. market is not a free market.

The host then inquired of Brook “What do we need to do to turn [the economy] around?” I was surprised by Brook’s response.

Brook answered that, with respect to the short term:

“We need to establish some sort of stability right now. Stabilizing the housing market, stabilizing the banking industry, stabilize – ultimately – the stock market. And that is a difficult task, there’s no doubt about it. I’d like to do that in a way that increases freedom; in a way that gets government out of our lives more.”

Brook went on to explain that, to stabilize the housing market, the government could allow more immigration: immigrants would bring in money and buy houses, thereby stabilizing the housing market. To stabilize the banking industry, he proposed eliminating capital gains taxes and dropping the heavy regulation of banks (ownership regulations, etc.), which, he said, would bring more capital into the banking system and thereby stabilize it.

I think Yaron Brook is an excellent Executive Director, and that his advocacy work is a value to people living in and around the world. However, in my view, his argument on this show could have been much better. Indeed, the one he offered might actually work to undermine his intended purpose.

First, it is a mistake to argue about whether a regulated vs. a free market caused an economic downturn/”meltdown”. Economists – even those who, like Milton Friedman, believe they are advocating individual freedom – love to talk about “markets”. They love measuring the success of an economy; they deal with the aggregated and collective data that describes or measures “the economy”. They focus on how using or not using force might or will change economic figures. In contrast, those who are actually advocating individual freedom, are not speaking about economics and figures. They are talking about individuals.

“Markets” talk is a mistake for an advocate of individual freedom. Markets are neither regulated nor free: markets are merely places in which individuals attempt to trade. The so-called “free market” is not a place where the market (i.e., the place) is free: it is a place where individuals are free.

Blaming a “free market” or the “over-regulated market” on the economic meltdown is like blaming an unlocked door for the fact that a burglar entered your house. Yell “stupid door” at the door, after the burglary, and people will realize you’re being irrational; they’ll know that you should be blaming yourself for leaving the door unlocked. Yet collectivists do the same thing when they blame the “market” (a place) for the economic downturn. They are doing the equivalent of yelling “Stupid door!”: in terms of explicit language, they are blaming a place, not individuals. And – almost without exception – “free market” advocates fail to dismiss the collectivists’ argument by simply pointing out that places don’t cause economic downturns, individuals do.

At this point, you might think I’m being silly. “Oh, come on McKeever, we all know that a free market is a place where people are free to trade, you’re making distinctions without differences”. Not so.

Consider who benefits by replacing talk of “free individuals” with talk of “free markets”. Consider what collectivists do not have to say so long as nobody is talking about individuals. For the purposes of winning over the people listening to the debate, consider how advantageous it is to the collectivist not to have to come out and say what he means.

The collectivist is not opposing “free markets”, per se. He is not trying to control “markets”, per se. He is trying to enslave and expropriate individuals. Period. When the collectivist asks “is the free market to blame for the economic downturn?” he means “is the failure to enslave and expropriate individuals to blame for the economic downturn”. For the love of life: call him on it! Make the true nature of his question explicit. If the collectivist truly wants to have that debate – the one about whether the economic downturn is due to a failure to enslave and expropriate people more than the government already does – good. Let him take and defend – explicitly – the side advocating, per se, the enslavement and expropriation of the listener/watcher. For the freedom advocate to allow the collectivist to depersonalize the discussion – to discuss “regulation of the market” instead of “enslavement and expropriation of individuals” – is a huge and self-defeating concession to the collectivist. The freedom advocate must keep the focus on individuals, not on markets.

Second, I disagree with the idea of advocating the “stabilization” of the economy. There is a debating tactic – called “cross-dressing” – in which one assumes the lingo of ones opponent, and makes ones argument in terms of that lingo. A freedom advocate asked “what can be done to turn the economy around” might well believe that people desire economic “stability” of some sort, and he might therefore speak of deregulation as a means of achieving “stability” (as Brook did). However, that is an error. By holding up stability as a priority, Brook implicitly held up stability as (a) the essential goal, and (b) an intrinsically valuable goal. By holding up stability as the intended consequence of de-regulation, Brook allowed his listener to infer, logically, that his intended purpose in advocating deregulation is to achieve an economic outcome of one sort or another. Doing so actually bolsters the case for tyranny and collectivism, and sets up capitalism for a fall.

What does “stability” mean? That prices do not change much? If so, and if stability is what is essential and “needed”, then we are bolstering the case for wage and price controls: for slavery and expropriation.

A given deregulation is good if it achieves economic stability? Well, what if some sort of deregulation achieves economic instability, but improves individual freedom? For example, the law profession is comprised of self-governing guilds. It is extremely “stable”, and – with competition limited by guild-admission limits – legal fees never seem to suffer a melt-down. Ending the guilds – deregulating – would probably result in an influx of legal practitioners and cause a “melt-down” in the price of legal services. Does that mean that we should keep laws and regulations that prohibit the practice of law by those who are not guild members?

What if things are deregulated, but stability does not result? Does that mean deregulation is a failed idea? Even if the deregulation did result in less slavery and expropriation?

A free individual can trade or not trade without facing as much as a threat that the government will take his life, liberty or property without his consent. So far, most regulations in the USA and Canada do not force a person to trade. Instead, they normally penalize certain instances of production (e.g., hemp farming) or trade (e.g., fixing a car engine without a license to do so). To trade a value, one must create a value. When individuals create and trade values, the “economy” is said to grow. So, when debating a collectivist, do not ask the collectivist to explain how “free markets caused the economic melt-down”. Rather – if you must talk of the economy, rather than of the essential issue, which is reason – ask the collectivist to explain how restricting individuals’ freedom to produce values or to trade them grows an economy.

As I have said before, it was Bill Clinton whose desk bore the sign which read “It’s the economy, stupid”. In reality, for the advocate of individual freedom, “It’s never the economy”.

I close simply by wishing Yaron and Alex the very best in all of their continuing, admirable, advocacy efforts.

Incidentally, moments ago, it was announced on Marc Emery’s facebook page that he today got bail and will be released as early as tomorrow while he awaits extradition to the USA for his ‘horrific’ crime: selling cannabis seeds…a crime punishable by death in the USA.

7:45 AM, November 14, 2009. e-mail from wim_rooijakkers@hetnet.nl:

Hello Dear,

Compliments of the day to you.I am Miss Happy sam ,28 years old single.I am 5ft.8inches,my weight is 60kg,black hair with brown eyes and fair in complexion.

I am an African decent,originally from Liberia, but presently located in another country known as Senegal in the West Coast of Africa.I am living as political assylum due to the political situations in my country which resulted to the death of my parents and living nobody behind me.

I am the only one left,living in the refugee camp here in senegal.i am seeking for partner.if you are interested kindly contact me with your details about you

E-mail h_happy12@yahoo.ca

Happy

11:36 PM, November 15, 2009. e-mail from wim_rooijakkers@hetnet.nl:

Complement of the day,

Thank you for reading my mail. i am Mrs. Yonghong Wan a staff of Standard Chartered Bank attached in Private Banking services here in Hong Kong. I am contacting you concerning a customer and, an investment placed under our banks management 4 years ago, I contacted you independently of our investigation and no one is informed of this communication and I would like to intimate you with certain facts that I believe would be of interest to you.

My proposal;

I am prepared to place you in a position to instruct the finance firm to release the deposit to you as the closest surviving relation. Upon receipt of the deposit, I am prepared to share the money with you 50/50. But on the other hand, you as a foreigner and also with all the necessary legal and official documentations from me and the presiding attorney and also with the authority vested upon me by the original depositor. If you find yourself able to work with me, contact me through this email: yonghongwan211@yahoo.com.hk Please note that, I am a happily married with two kids. Do not betray my confidence. If we can be of one accord, we should plan a meeting, soon.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Yonghong Wan.

You mention [in the 2007 Freedom Party election platform] how you want public health care and education to be paid for by those who use it, and have a private option for everyone else. How about those who cannot afford either, those who have been born into cyclical poverty through no fault of their own. Now i understand that these people can break the cycle, but isn’t access to health care and education necessary for them to break this cycle. This is a question that still bothers me….What becomes of those who cannot afford access to basic services for survival?

I answered that part of the writer’s letter as follows:

On the matter of health care and education, I offer you the following responses.

1. Ontario did not have a government health insurance monopoly until 1969. It was brought in by Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives. To pay for it, the PCs also introduced a new tax to Ontarians: the Ontario provincial income tax.

   Ontarians actually fought *against* the introduction of the government monopoly: almost everyone had insurance, and most of those who did not paid as they went. In other words, it was not brought in to deal with some sort of health care problem. Rather, it created health care problems.

   Immediately, and annually, the system was flooded by people who – not having to pay – used almost no discretion about whether to use the services of a medical professional. It was perennially “under-funded” as a result.

   Just imagine the “underfunding” of gasoline, where the government to hold a monopoly upon its supply to you. Think about it: People would be filling their yachts with gasoline, taking trips they would not take if they had to pay for the gasoline themselves, et cetera. There would be gasoline “shortages”, because there would be a limit to how much money the government could tax out of your hands and spend upon gasoline. Eventually, the history books and the CBC [i.e., the government-owned and tax-funded national television broadcaster] would be full of re-written history about how horrible it was when some people could not afford gasoline and had to ride their bicycles to work, or walk, or car-pool. To expect anyone to do such things would be considered an “insult”, “degrading”, maybe even “racist”. Undoubtedly, it would be claimed that “fuel is a human right”.

   If that sounds ridiculous, consider that it is a matter of fact that that is precisely what happened as a result of the introduction of socialized medicine to Ontario in 1969. It now consumes over 40% of the Ontario budget: approximately 60 cents of every Ontario tax dollar (note that some of our budget funds are contributed by the federal government from federal tax revenues).

2. No amount of hardship justifies morally the expropriation or enslavement of others. Those who cannot provide for their own survival must rely solely upon the charity – i.e., consensual contributions – of others. Should I lose my legs in an accident, that does not make it morally right for me forcibly to take money from you, or to threaten you with imprisonment by pointing a gun at you and telling you that you will be imprisoned if you do not mow my lawn, bath me, cook my dinner and tuck me into bed.

   In Freedom Party’s view, a government does not require the immoral (only a criminal gang does that). The proper role of government is the opposite: to protect you from those who would forcibly take your money/property, or enslave you. Therefore, the correct political question is not: what becomes of those who cannot afford health care but rather: what becomes of those who can afford health care?

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

We need a new direction — one that reduces the cost of the public sector and fosters growth in the private sector. Ending corporate welfare, negotiating public-sector contracts that reflect the realities of the private sector, peeling back the red tape and overregulation that are paralyzing job creation and introducing targeted tax relief would be a good start.

In the comments section, the tenacious and Ayn Rand inspired commenter IainGFoulds offers, in response:

…the two sentences that offer solutions are little more than vague, undefined rhetoric.

… Come on, Tim. Don’t play the cheap opportunist.

I replied:

I am with Iain halfway: I agree that the article does little other than criticize (well, and justly) the McGuinty government. I will even agree that Hudak’s the best that the conservatives have to offer. The problem is: that’s not saying much.

I do not mean to imply that Hudak is the essential problem. The essential problem is: conservativism. Hudak is a good exemplar of it, but replacing Hudak with another conservative would not change the fact that conservativism is not the answer to the McGuinty government.

Iain’s proper observation – that the conservatives offer little of substance to take the place of what McGuinty is offering – is founded on the fact that both the liberals and the conservatives are essentially poll-driven pragmatists who, when nobody is complaining, find new things to control; more ways to reduce your discretion.

Notice – as an almost perfect example – that, in the little and vague bit that Hudak does offer as a “good start”, we see the words: “We need a new direction — one that reduces the cost of the public sector and fosters growth in the private sector”. I respond:

(a) no, the “cost” of the public sector is not the essential issue. The essential issue is: of *what* ought the public sector to be comprised. The answer should *not* include: “tax funded health care” or “tax funded education”, the two elements that account for about 75% of all tax revenues in the province. The “new direction” is not to reduce the cost of those services, but to stop funding them with taxes altogether, and to make publicly-offered health and education compete – on a level playing field – with private options.

(b) no, the problem is not that McGuinty’s governance fails to “foster the private sector”. If anything, failing to foster the private sector is a *virtue*. The simple fact is that the government ought not to be *fostering* anything except respect for the life, liberty, and property of others. It ought *not* to be a player in the economy; a lender of last resort; a business “partner”; or any of the other things that today’s corporativists (whether liberal or conservative) want it to be.

There’s a label for the “new direction” government should be taking with respect to the economy: “EXIT”.

Paul McKeever, B.Sc.(Hons), M.A., LL.B.
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario