22 Responses to Yes Virginia, There Is A Libertarian Candidate in Cambridge

  1. Vrbanovic August 29, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    That is why fourth party and independent candidates can never win, the forces that are in control don’t care about democracy. it is just an old boys(and gals) club.

  2. Betty Terrell August 30, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Voting for a non traditional party candidate is always a consideration but the lure of getting a member that is a part of the government is a benefit of voting for the traditional party’s, and unfortunately one of the drawbacks for the Libertarians.

  3. Hags August 30, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Allan, I’ll consider voting for you if you promise to give me some booty..no not that kind. What I’m thinking about is a ball cap, or a Libertarian badge or a funky pen.
    The least I’ll settle for is coffee at Williams.
    P.S. I’ll also weigh bribes from the mainstream candidates; I’m only being democratic.

  4. Allan Dettweiler August 31, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Hags, I don’t think we Libertarians have any of the funky items you mention. We’re running the party like we would run government – within our means.
    Now Hags, you don’t need to vote for me to get you to buy you a coffee. Just hope I don’t have to take every voter in Cambridge out for coffee. I’ll be having one heck of a buzz from the caffeine.
    I definitely not mainstream. I think I’m an upstream candidate.
    When we go on our “date”, I’m sure we’ll talk about more than politics.

  5. Jimm Hillis August 31, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Jezzus Allan, I will take you up on that Coffee Deal!

  6. Sharon Kopp August 31, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    I’ll bring the tape recorder!

  7. Aaron Parsons September 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    You take it to them Allan, time to put the big party’s on notice that many of us in Ontario are tired of the big business that is called Government.

  8. Allan Dettweiler September 3, 2011 at 10:50 am

    You know, I’m not a terribly sophisticated type guy. I don’t understand everything there is to know about politics.
    I know my math – some years I was at the top of the class – UNLESS, that was a year with algebra. Then, I was at the bottom of the class.
    I understood Trig – but, being a Tech Boy (only those my age will understand that), I never took Calculus. I would have flunked Calculus, because I would have a mental block on that stuff. I would have given up on it before I started.
    But, I know basic math. If I had enough time left in my life, I could count from 1 to 230,000,000,000. That’s 230 Billion (but not in Britain – their billion is different. I digress.
    But (I shouldn’t start a sentence with “but”) – oh well it’s my style) – I do know enough to know that our Ontario debt (not to mention national and personal debt) has got us in deep doo-doo.
    And, what I can’t understand is that those sophisticated politicians out there don’t seem to get basic math. They don’t seem to care about the future.
    For them it’s all about NOW. Especially, getting elected or re-elected NOW.
    Folks, I’m not going to win in the upcoming election. I PROMISE.
    Now, having made a promise, I also promise that that’s the only promise I hope to break. Afterall, don’t politicians have to break promises? You’re not a politician unless you break a promise. So, if by some quirk, I get elected in Cambridge North Dumfries, I promise to break that promise. Sounds like something Chretian would have said. Remember?

    A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.
    Jean Chretian

    Anyhow, I digressed again. But, Mr. Chretian is more sophisticated than I will ever be. I concede that.
    So, I’m not going to get elected in all probability. So why bother voting Libertarian?
    A Libertarian vote says that you are just plain fed up with the back and forth politics of Conservatives and Liberals – and on occasion the NDP.
    You want to get rid of Mr. McGuinty, but you’re afraid of Mr. Hudak. He might be too much like Mr. Harris before him.
    So, you’re torn. You’re afraid that in 6 months you are going to regret your vote – no matter which way you go.
    By voting Libertarian, you’re making a statement that you are tired of the status quo. Like me, you understand enough math to know we can’t keep up the path we’re on.
    I’m not overly religious, but I do believe in God. There is a verse in the Bible (NIV) which goes like this.

    “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it”.

    Yes,I’m using this verse out of context, but I think it could easily apply to where we are going in Ontario.
    There is a broad path we can travel on. Handouts, giveaways, subsidies. People who don’t want to pay there own way like the broad path.
    The narrow way is more difficult. Trying to keep afloat when there are taxes – and taxes on taxes, is very difficult.
    Libertarians don’t promise things will be easy if we are elected. It’s a long way back to that fork in the road where we encountered the broad and narrow gates. But, we believe it is not too late to turn back.
    If elected, there will be times when you wondered why you ever took a chance on this party.
    In the early years of a Libertarian government, our performance may only be able to be measured in 1 way. Is Ontario’s debt decreasing?
    The more we decrease the debt, the easier the going will be.
    There will be more money to spend on those necessities all Ontarians value. Such as, but not limited to, Health, Education, and a Judicial System.
    Yes, I’m not a sophisticated guy, but it makes sense to me.

  9. Hags September 3, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Allan, I love this last post; I believe it’s one of the best things presented in the wacky (thank god) Citizen. It’s full of self deprecating humour, passion and concern. I encourage you to write more…on any topic.
    If Leone, Atinuke or Kathyrn sounded even remotely as down to earth and unscripted as you do in the latest post, I’d consider them. But as of today, you have my vote….I will of course still accept any bribe proferred.
    P.S. when me meet I’ll tell you the story of Dalton being against little old ladies.

  10. Allan Dettweiler September 3, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    I remember that during the past elections, I saw a Letter to the Editor in which the writer bemoaned the fact that none of the candidates had even knocked on his door.
    I also remember that there were several candidates who did a lot of door knocking.I think of Mr. Ermeta who worked very hard, and as a result won a seat on Council. He deserved it for his hard work.
    I have learned a lesson about political door knocking, but I ignore it. To my detriment.
    Any expert will tell you the proper thing to do when door knocking is to quickly introduce yourself, give the resident some literature, and agree with them as much as possible.
    Whatever you do, don’t disagree with them on a subject. And, don’t commit yourself any more than you have to.
    And, as soon as you can, get out of there as quickly as possible.
    This is where I fail miserably. I will agree with them, disagree with them, discuss with them – and worst of all – argue with them.
    I may not be right on everything, but then again, the “customer” is not always right either.
    Anyhow, if I knock on your door, you will find out what I believe in.
    I’m not going to necessarily agree with everything you say. I’ll tell it the way I see it. Even if I lose your vote doing so.
    I can do that, because hey, I’ve really got nothing to lose.
    So, press me for answers. Don’t let me give you an imcomplete answer, or worse still a non-answer.
    And one more thing. Please make sure my competition gives you a proper answer to your questions as well. You deserve a complete and honest answer to your questions.

  11. Allan Dettweiler September 4, 2011 at 10:17 am

    The Ten “Cannots” of Political Economy:
    You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
    You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
    You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
    You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
    You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
    You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
    You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
    You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
    You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative.
    You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
    Source: Libertarian quotes.

  12. Allan Dettweiler September 7, 2011 at 9:26 am

    EMPLOYMENT EQUITY/PAY EQUITY (from the Libertarian Platform on the Ontario Libertarian website)

    No two pieces of legislation have done more to increase costs and tensions in the workplace. They are based on the unproven assumptions that the hiring and pay scales of visible minorities and women etc., are the direct result of racist and sexist attitudes of all employers.

    Their implementation has required the creation of expensive bureaucracies which now dictate who shall be given preference in hiring and what they shall be paid. This is really legislated discrimination. The farcical nature of the legislation now sees many claiming some form of mental disability or ancient link to one of the “disadvantaged” groups to get a job or promotion.

    Newspaper articles have noted that the agencies responsible for implementing these programmes do not follow their own hiring guidelines. Similarly, teachers’ unions with a predominantly female membership are adamant in saying they have no intention of following the law.

    Libertarians believe these schemes interfere with the right of individuals to negotiate a private employment contract without government interference. They are unjust, unfair, expensive and represent more red tape that sends jobs to other jurisdictions. They don’t work. Libertarians would see them scrapped.

  13. Allan Dettweiler September 7, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    The following article in THE RECORD this past Saturday shows the barriers those legitimately in need face with government run bureaucracies.


    But, the public are more than willing to assist those who need help through no fault of their own.


  14. Allan Dettweiler September 7, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Medicare can’t heal itself, Karen Selick, National Post, September 1, 2011

    Pediatrician Karen Dockrill of Whitby, Ont., will go on trial in early October before the disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, charged with conduct that is “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.” Danielle Martin, spokeswoman for Canadian Doctors for Medicare, was quoted in a recent National Post article, calling Dr. Dockrill’s alleged conduct “unethical.”

    What are the heinous deeds of which Dr. Dockrill stands accused?

    She owned and operated a facility called Mom and Baby Depot. For an annual $1,500 membership fee, the Depot provided parents with access to a team of child-care professionals, including breastfeeding consultants, nurses, nutritionists, social workers and a chiropractor. Members could phone in, 24 hours a day, for medical advice, including from Dr. Dockrill herself — reportedly a godsend to inexperienced parents.

    Because of the membership fee, Dr. Dockrill was able to offer longer office appointments than the standard well-baby check-up for which OHIP (the Ontario Health Insurance Plan) pays practitioners only $32. But those longer appointments and all that telephone advice (for which OHIP pays nothing) also meant that she had to limit the number of patients in her practice. The College alleges that only babies whose parents paid membership fees were accepted as regular patients.

    Ms. Martin, the medicare cheerleader, says it’s unethical to “require people to pay again” for something that is already paid for by tax dollars.

    But what if taxpayers aren’t really getting what they’re supposedly paying for? Ontario residents might pay several thousand dollars per year into Ontario’s coffers but still find that a 10-minute appointment — all the doctor can afford to give them at OHIP rates — is insufficient to answer all their questions or resolve their children’s health problems. Other taxpayers — roughly 7% of Canadians — can’t find a family doctor at all. They spend hours waiting with sick infants at overcrowded hospital emergency rooms or walk-in clinics.

    No discussion of ethics can ignore the distinction between coercion and voluntariness. Coercion is the very essence of socialized medicine. Under Canadian medicare, extra billing is verboten. User fees — verboten. Competing with the government’s monopoly health-insurance plan — verboten. Withholding your tax payments until you get the promised services — verboten.

    Forcing people to pay for services and then not providing them is tantamount to theft or fraud. It is the state system of coercive public health care that is unethical.

    And it’s not just unethical — there’s a good chance it’s also unconstitutional. In the Chaoulli decision of 2005, three Supreme Court justices pronounced Quebec’s health insurance monopoly to be a violation of the rights to life and security of the person under the Charter, saying: “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” Cases pending in Ontario and British Columbia courts seek similar rulings for their respective provinces.

    Dr. Dockrill’s service, by contrast, was entirely voluntary. She couldn’t force anyone to join. Members who felt they weren’t getting value for money simply need not have renewed. A voluntary transaction between consenting adults, with no harm to third parties and a high probability of significant benefits to those involved — how can that be unethical? Forbidding people to use their own hard-earned resources to optimize their family’s health is what’s unethical.

    Of course, in the topsy-turvy moral code of socialists, anything that might produce inequality is abhorrent. By their logic, we should shut down all private schools — after all, customers are paying twice — and permit only hamburger to be sold until filet mignon is affordable to all.

    Inexorably, the defects in socialized medicine become obvious. Contrary to official Canadian mythology, our health-care system is far from the best in the world. Among 28 OECD countries, we are the sixth-highest spender relative to GDP. However, we rank 20th out of 22 in the ratio of doctors to population, and 17th in the availability of CT scanners and MRI machines.

    Yet we are the only OECD country to ban private medical insurance, and one of only four countries that do not require patients to contribute something towards the cost of using a public hospital, a general practitioner or a specialist. Are those other 24 OECD countries all behaving unethically?

    Perhaps when Canada finally realizes the folly of demonizing innovative physicians like Dr. Dockrill, the 12,000-plus Canadian-educated doctors who have taken refuge from our decrepit system in foreign countries will feel more inclined to return.

    Karen Selick is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is sponsoring a court challenge against Ontario’s health-care laws.

  15. Allan Dettweiler September 17, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    “Giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.”— P.J. O’Rourke

  16. Dominick Murrieta September 24, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Having read all the attacks on the Conservatives from the Liberals and the attacks on the Liberals from the Conservatives and the total lack of energy from the NDP i want to hear more from the Libertarian side of things. I think you people have been ignoring them on this site and since they may get my vote I want to know more before committing.

  17. Allan Dettweiler September 25, 2011 at 2:56 am
  18. Scot Ferguson-Barber September 29, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Allan, this is a more appropriate place to discuss your views on abortion.

  19. Margaret Barr September 29, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Scot, how in God’s name would you know ‘where’ it is more appropriate for Allan or any other candidate to express their views? Given your complete lack of knowledge on provincial funding issues for abortion (as you proved on another thread)I’d say you better not be the one at the Citizen making these decisions.

    I am pro-choice. But Allan has every right to bring up abortion issues in his campaign, if he so chooses. It is each Province, that decides whether to fund clinic abortions entirely, partially or not at all. (Though, as in N.S. should a province refuse to fund clinic abortions, at all, it must pay a ‘penalty’ to the fed. gov.)

  20. Scot Ferguson-Barber September 29, 2011 at 11:04 am

    In the appropriate place. I don’t want everything taken up with an abortion debate, which is a non-issue in this campaign, but is Allan’s personal mission. I know how heated the debate will get, it’s happened here before.Is this something from the Libertarian Platform?

  21. Allan Dettweiler October 3, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Under a Libertarian Government, hammering out a collective agreement would be between the Employer and the Employees.
    Arbitration could be chosen to rule ONLY if both parties were in agreement.
    It would not be in the interest of either party to shut down any truly essential services such as Ambulance, Police or Fire because citizens would have the right to sue one or both parties if any harm came to them because of a lack of service.

  22. Allan Dettweiler October 3, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Under a Libertarian Government, there would be little, or more probably no money, for theatres, convention centres, the arts or other non-essentials.
    At least until those leaking water pipes were fixed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *