Editing Archived Status Of 2013-2014 Platforms

* While the platform positions are important, we should not overlook the fact that they may not have popular appeal so may not help us get traction with media. What will? How about in addition to those platform positions we also come up with some issues that may be popular like removing the laws that prohibit shopping ANYWHERE during certain holidays. For example, on Labour Day, only certain designated areas are open for business. In Toronto the Eaton's Centre, in Woodbridge Vaughan Mills Mall, in Markham Pacific Mall. These areas were chosen for whatever reason. Why should any have to close on any day if they wish to be open? - Allen Small
* This is what "official positions" are for.  These tangent ideas, which we could make single leaflets, or include in guidance for candidates.  I created an [[Prep:Official Position on Statutory Holidays|Official Position on Statutory Holidays]].  Although, if you're logic is to seek popular approval, I'm not sure telling the masses they'll never a stat holiday off/special pay, is a good idea.--[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 06:43, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

= Andrew Phillips Suggestions = 
''At some point we may want to move this section to a separate page and link to it, possibly extracting some items.'' 

 From: Andrew Phillips [mailto:andrewmp@rogers.com] 
 Sent: November-07-12 11:00 AM
 To: Andrew Phillips
 Subject: Libertarian Meeting Ottawa Saturday November 10, 2012

O' Brien's Pub and Eatery 1145 Heron Road, Ottawa, Ontario Saturday November 10, 2012, 2 pm to 4 pm official time. Discussion about upcoming Provincial Election, local election preparation planning, how much we dislike Liberal (and pretty much any other type of) governments and a whole lot more. 

My personal wish list for inclusion in our provincial election platform.
#No funding to public education institutions that selectively apply the concept of free speech like  [http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australia-university-blocks-pro-life-group-worried-group-would-target-women?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29 in Australia]. 
#close the Ontario Human Rights Commission 
#Allowing newly graduating doctors to automatically be opted out of the public medical system. Let family doctors run private practices. 
#Protect privacy of personal medical information because of  [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/03303214839/supreme-court-says-pharma-companies-can-have-access-to-drug-prescription-info-to-pressure-doctors-into-prescribing-more.shtml this] happening in the United States. Especially in light of [http://pharmawatchcanada.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-its-a-business-plan-industry-wants-our-medical-information-and-government-wants-to-hand-it-over/ this article] at Pharma Watch Canada. Big Pharma will not be allowed access to people personal medical records it's dangerous enough now as it is. 
#Allowing Charter schools to operate with the orientation towards a proper classic liberal education and not the self-esteem curriculum which is a proven disaster. 
#Instituting proper protection of property rights in Ontario. 
##Removing all legislation the McGuinty government has implemented that negates private property rights especially that aimed a rural farmers and their ability to grow food. 
##Kick the UN and Agenda 21 out of Ontario. 
##Repeal all Green Energy Act subsidizes and regulations. 
#Institute legislation that will protect the people of Ontario from the Draconian aspects of Federal Bill C-36 ([http://nhppa.org/?page_id=1103] and [http://preventdisease.com/news/10/121510_Canada_passes_bill_c-36.shtml]) and provision of:
##abolishing protection from trespass, a court-ordered warrant, and the need for court-supervised search and seizure;
##on ONLY suspicion, health inspectors with the aid of police can invade any location in the country, seize and confiscate goods deemed unsafe (i.e. health supplements) and violate all constitutional rights of all parties involved
##it bypasses existing laws on privacy and confidentiality and explicitly exempts the Minister of Health and government inspectors from any kind of third-party oversight and accountability;
##the need to publish regulations governing the activities of the inspectors is abolished, too;
##accused individuals have their access to the courts seriously limited, even the assumption of innocence is gone as violators are considered guilty until proven innocent with no recourse to any court of law.
##astronomical fines are to be handed out for crimes committed on the Minister’s assumption of guilt which requires no supporting evidence for independent examination;
##even the corporate shield would disappear, because corporate directors would be legally liable for the actions of their employees -; which actions would be deemed criminal solely on the opinion of the Minister, not by the courts;
##this bill allows foreign governments and institutions, like CODEX and the World Trade Organization, to have the same powers over Canadians in all these matters outlined above, as if they were part of our own government.
#the closing of all government departments - on a graduated basis - that have nothing to do with clothing, housing, and feeding the citizens of Ontario. 
#end all multiculturalism and official bilingualism polices immediately they are having the effect of ghettoizing us along cultural and linguistic lines. 
##there will be no Sharia Law in Ontario period - end of story. 
#All corporate welfare to end  - immediately. Privately owned establishments will have restored property rights on their side so there will be no need for public money to prop them up. 

Hope to see you there 

Bigger (government) is never better government<br>
Andrew Phillips<br>
Ontario Libertarian Party

=Anonymous Member Provided Chicken Scratch At Oct 2012AGM =
A person handed the scanned pages (see below) at me, and then ducked out of the AGM.  I don't really have the patience to include somebody's $0.02 who can't even put their own name on their chicken scratch.  Maybe that's a bad attitude.  I'd like to discuss some of their comments, but I got a feeling I'd be discussing them with myself after I typed their input.--[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 17:24, 7 November 2012 (EST)
*[[Media:OddPagesOfAnonymous2013PlatformInput.pdf]]
*[[Media:EvenPagesOfAnonymous2013PlatformInput.pdf]]

I believe the document above is from Alex Bussmann, a party member and candidate 2011, who was unable to stay for the full AGM.--[[User:Allen Small|Allen Small]] 12:32, 10 November 2012 (EST)



A member of our party took the time to review and write in comments (chicken scratches as a demeaning term)directly upon our DRAFT platform that we were presented without notice and with no time allocated to debate the issues live in person. We were invited to add our comments here our our wiki site. Well I am adding my comments.

First, our libertarian philosophy is to offer an alternative "educational" view of living lifestyles. We don't force our chosen lifestyles upon others, all we ask is for others to tolerate our self chosen lifestyle. We prefer peaceful collaboration among liberty promoting, private property respecting, free trading individuals who engage in such lifestyles for mutual consenting benefits. We try not to inflict executive orders or potential harm. Being demeaning towards a fellow libertarian, including those who prefer to remain anonymous to protect their privacy, is not really in the spirit of libertarian acceptance. Executive powers may lead to superior concepts of oneself which is easily identified by comments and actions. I am guilty of placing myself above my fellow human beings on many occasions. I think it might be a natural competitive phenomena.

Now, regarding our DRAFT platform document. First, let me clearly state; "Thank you. Well Done." This is a great start to establishing our consistent party messages to the general public. But now comes the hard work. To achieve a mutually agreed upon structure and message that our party members and especially our representatives willingly accept to broadcast. I myself have a problem with our Taxation plank.

Where in our libertarian philosophy do we endorse the forceful extortion of private property from private citizens? Taxes are not a NECESSARY part of maintaining a functioning legal structure nor any organization including a general government administration. Taxes are robbery, period. We libertarians do not endorse private robbery nor public robbery. Both are criminal acts that create property loosing victims. We should be promoting means for tax victims to seek restitution, not greater victimization.

Our anonymous contributor clearly identified the appropriate term; "funding is necessary to maintain government operations" and we libertarians support user fees for government services in addition to voluntary citizen contributions clearly identified for specific government responsibilities. Citizen may choose to allocate their "donations" according to their own choosing. Individuals may even allocate or budget their contributions according to their own preferences or priorities. One may choose to allocate twice as much resources to local police and legal arbitration services over their allocation to our national standing defensive forces. An individual may choose to contribute 100% of their donation to support our democratic parliament system. It should always be the peoples choice as to where they wish to contribute energy, effort and resources. We as a political party can only ask for assistance and contributions but we would be criminals if we TAXED (coerced contribution under threat of harm) our members. It is no different for our government administrative organization.

As a commercial driver, I pay "user fees" to the department of transportation to maintain my privileged "drivers' license" on a regular basis. By law, I must pay for and rewrite drivers test and pay a doctor to evaluate my physical condition and produce a medical certificates. I do pay user fees directly as tolls on some roads, bridges and ferries. I also pay indirectly through user fees (presently taxes) applied to energies consumed to power vehicles. I remember hearing the State of New Jersey (talk radio while driving) contemplating issuing "step o meters" to its citizens in order to apply "walking taxes" as an additional source of government funding. Individuals may need to pay for and register all their shoes in order to obtain the privilege of walking on lands controlled by territorial governing bodies. Tyrants only grant "livestock" permission to live according the the tyrants desires and plans.

We all have a tendency to become tyrants. I think its a natural competitive phenomena. We individual must watch our own actions and reactions to guard ourselves from becoming tyrants. I live among individual self dictators and we tolerate each others self controls. And we stand guard with each other to prevent one of us from initiating dictatorial control over us. I think it is a natural phenomena to collaborate for peaceful co existence. --[[User:Neal|Neal]] 11:29, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Neal, thanks for your insight, and constructive criticism.  I was a bit hard on the anonymous notes.  This is the first time, I'm showing frustration.  It feels like I've been banging my head against a wall - with a heard of cats on the other side of that wall - for the last year.  My beef isn't with Mr. Bussman, it's actually with 90% of members.  Lots of members want to provide their $0.02, they talk about action, they have big, grande ideas, for what we should be doing, but when push comes to shove they aren't there.  Obviously if Alex ran as a Candidate,  I put him in the wrong bucket. My apologies to Mr. Bussman.'''I don't know what to do Neal.'''  Part of me is starting to believe we're going to stay a heard of cats forever.  I'll be stepping down as soon as I see emprical evidence of this being true.  And, in a completely other thread, this morning I think I just saw my proof. --[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 07:55, 19 November 2012 (EST)

The horrible part, is I can completely relate to the members who have grande ideas, but then at the end of the day aren't there.  I too, am guilty of speaking up, then not putting boots on the ground.  Its a behaviour I need to stop, before I expect other people to.--[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 08:07, 19 November 2012 (EST)


Jeff, thank you very much for recognizing your frustration level and for offering your apology to Mr. Bussman. I hope he finds it in him to forgive you. We are all frustrated at our dirigiste governing agency trying to further encroach upon our liberties and enterprises. Individually, we are all trying to liberate ourselves from the iron fist clutch the government has around our necks. We are all experiencing some form of anger that is motivating us to seek individual solutions. 

Some of us see a potential benefit of joining the libertarian movement in silent privacy. Some of us see a greater benefit by actually becoming a registered member in order to feel a little more secure against the government. We voluntarily associate to satisfy our primal feeling of security by achieving "protection" through numbers. Together we stand, united against tyranny! But some of us are just a little more courageous and we individually choose to stand point guard or be active libertarians. Yet, some of us just want trophy "titles" without the responsibility associated with party position functions. All organizations especially organic systems operate on spontaneous order and this order system can be very frustrating because it is uncontrollable.

Here we are working in a wiki environment. Wikis are based on an open collaborative, transparent, sharing and empowering environment. It is a spontaneous contributing, establishment and development system that flies or dies as market forces determine. We both would love to see this wiki and our Libertarian Party go viral in our lifetime. We must hold a longer vision over an above our present frustrating situation. In the movie, 10,000 years, the hero only wanted to free his enslaved wife but he ended up freeing up multiple groups of peoples including a saber tooth man eating cat. He took the risk without any guarantee of success.

We active Libertarians are taking on our own risk to identify ourselves as enemies of the STATE. Only those who are willing to risk themselves in their own pursuit of liberties and free enterprise, without any chances of achieving success against the STATE, will do so. Breaking the mental shackles is achieved under one's own consent. So be it.

We step up and defend ourselves, our families and our communities, when we are individually ready.

--[[User:Neal|Neal]] 16:59, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Well said Neal.--[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 17:20, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== A Clear Viable Alternative. ==

From my discussions with people, regular undecided voting folk, one particular obstacle has become very clear to me. There is a widely perceived notion that the Libertarian Party is nothing more than a Conservative Extremist party. ie We are the Conservative Conservatives vs. the Progressive Conservatives, the FAR right wing.

In some aspects, this may be true. In other ways, certainly not. Spending seems to be the biggest issue. I feel that if we fail to effectively set ourselves apart as a viable alternative, we will be dismissed as needless alternative and splitting the conservative vote, eroding the chances of a potential victory over a Liberal or NDP.

To dyed in the wool Libertarians, voting with their conscience is not an issue. We can count on that 2% or less. The undecided need to see why we're different, and a better choice.


What is clear to me is that we need to specifically define issues [[relating to the Province of Ontario]] in which we our platform is different to that of the Conservative party. I would like some help coming up with 10 ideas or platforms where we are at odds with the Conservatives.

1. Civil liberties. On a federal level the Conservatives have shown that they wish to grand the Government power to conduct warrant-less spying on Canadians' internet activities with bill C-30. We need similar examples of this intent on the provincial level.

2. Spending. While most believe the Conservatives are "slash and burn" we know this to not really be true, as certain areas of spending increase or are misappropriated under the Conservatives. We need examples of this provincially.

3. Legislating Morality. Same-sex marriage, religion etc. Examples.

4. Economics. In many ways our platforms parallel. Lets explore ways they do not.

5. ???

Feel free to add/comment.

Thanks for the input Dan Dominato. (Just a hint, click the "add signature button" to anything you put on wiki discussion pages) --[[User:JNMcLarty|Jeffrey McLarty]] 00:03, 4 January 2013 (EST)
--[[User:Dan Dominato|Dan Dominato]] 00:07, 4 January 2013 (EST) Got it, thanks. First edit.

Dan Dominato, please accept my gratitude. Thank you for contributing and I appreciate the quality of your contributions. It is up to us individually to promote our party as we desire it to be perceived.  But our competitors and especially the media will project us as they want to do. We can't control the public perception of our party or all the image projectors but we do our best with our resources and our collaborators.

We are working with 5 basic planks; Taxation, Health, Education, Energy and Jobs. May I suggest you make up some kind of comparative matrix. Keep it simple five parties (Libertarians, Green, NDP, Conservative and Liberals) by our five planks. If I invested time to learn, I might be able to make a table. Dig up our competitor platforms and plug in their "promises" regarding taxation, health, education, energy and jobs. Once you have your five parties presenting five "promises" regarding the five basic planks, you might be able to come up with YOUR OWN EXAMPLES of our party's differences in comparison to our main competitive Statist political parties. I know, that I will be also competing against a Freedom Party candidate in my riding, so I have studied there Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). They are another dirigiste party which wishes to control peoples' choices. The biggest difference that I see among us competing political parties is that we are the only party that respects the volunteered consent of the individual. All the other parties desire to control peoples choices regarding our five planks.

We are the party of choice. We would prefer that individuals control their own choices regarding their own incomes (jobs), the own energy options, their own education options, their own health options and their own volunteered taxes. Individual shall choose who and how much of their money they desire to share. --[[User:Neal|Neal]] 17:21, 4 January 2013 (EST)

On Jan. 13, 2013 Jay Miller wrote:
OLP Platform draft - January 13, 2013 

Vision: a society where individual choice and initiative is encouraged; where self-reliance is respected; where there are fewer government decisions affecting the lives of citizens; where prosperity occurs, taxes are reduced, social benefit spending lessened simply because all can seek the education that suits them, leading to higher incomes and more creation of wealth - meaning more money for retirement, more self-supporting individuals, less reliance on government in any sphere. 
    
More and more, there seems to be a vision that the backstop of a social safety net has become the focus of our society and our discussion of where we are going within that society. This is a downward spiral, when we need to think about how we can prosper and benefit from more opportunity and freedom. European experience should be a lesson to us. More government infringement on individual endeavour has not helped there.
  
How to get government to do more for you, in many occasions by doing less: Government can do more for you when it does less.

  - protecting individual rights, e.g. police protection: Oka, Caledonia, native protests closing down bridges, rail lines, international crossings
  - protecting property rights, e.g, compensation for lowering of home and farm  values, as is done in European countries, because neighbouring wind turbines were erected
  - investigating proposed environmental incursions, e.g. mega-quarries, wind turbines, to protect us from pollution hazards
  - referendums to protect us from unelected initiatives, e.g. major treaties, $ 7 billion solar energy purchases, the proposed $ 5 billion Kelowna accord
  - encouraging individual initiative and freedom of choice
  - encouraging freedom to seek local solutions to health and medical issues, especially when resources are unavailable or the quality of care is low, thus reducing the overall tax burden, shortening wait lists, and funding additional health care staff and facilities in Ontario
  - encouraging initiatives for alternative education, by offering tax rebates to parents dissatisfied with public schools, as in other provinces
  - guaranteeing a balanced operating budget, as is required for Ontario municipalities, so future citizens will not face debts they did not incur or vote for
  - reducing the size of the public sector so society is not burdened with labour contracts and pensions that are inflexible and inappropriate ( become a purchaser of services, not a provider of services )
    - enshrining the principle that every dollar of public expenditure must bring more value than a dollar in the private sector 
  - reducing the opportunity for corruption, irresponsibility, and misuse of funds by limiting the functions, role, and scope of government
  - tempering the wish to spend more with the knowledge that there is not enough money even for existing programs - not enough money to achieve the results promised for existing programs - and therefore a need both to scale back on what has already been promised, and to be very selective on money to be allocated to any program, whether old or new
  - showing foresight in funding 'green' programs, with the knowledge that Canada can only have a tiny impact on the world, and cannot significantly counter the movement in China, Europe and elsewhere to increase emissions; to be cautious in committing major funding with the knowledge that no one knows how much of global warming is caused by humans, and with the certainty that no one knows how to reverse it
  - acknowledging that subsidizing any sector or job means money taken from the taxpayer, and a service that then costs more for that taxpayer than it would without the subsidy; therefore, higher taxes and a more costly service
  -rejecting the notion that government can magically create good-paying jobs without a large hidden cost to society and taxpayers; and accepting the reality that Canada is in a more competitive situation with the U.S. than formerly. The loss of the London locomotive plant to Indiana is a telling example of this.