Who Do You Trust?

ENERGY SECURITY and FOOD SECURITY are among the most important political topics of our age, but they are swamped by waves of climate change propaganda from the usual powerful sources.

Fake Science disguised as “Opinion”.

My hackles rise whenever I see an article that associates CO2 with the threat of a “Climate Change crisis”.

Frank Morris is the author of the linked Opinion article published in the November 2023 issue of The Lindsay Advocate (TLA), a local magazine found in many shopping venues within the Kawartha Lakes region of Ontario. I don’t know Frank personally, but he describes himself as a “former sailor and retired banker”.

I wonder why Roderick Benns, owner and chief editor of the magazine, believes that anyone should care about Frank’s opinion on CO2 and its alleged contribution to the climate change crisis theory.

https://issuu.com/kawarthalakespublisher/docs/tla_nov23-issuu_compressed

Frank began his essay stating: “The Carbon Tax is a fair and effective measure to educate the public about the impact fossil fuels have on climate change and to reduce our dependency on them.”

Yup. That’s an opinion alright. It’s Frank’s, not mine.

Why do I consider this article to be harmful propaganda?

Frank offers no expertise or factual evidence to back his opening statement or any of the claims that follow.

The only conceivable reason for The Lindsay Advocate to publish Frank’s Opinion is to promote a narrative. Roderick Benns is well known for his left-wing causes such as Universal Basic Income and his pro-Marxist sympathies aligned with organized labour organizations. This is not the first time Roderick has published a climate change alarmism article. Ginny Colling writes posts with much the same content in every TLA issue.

Roderick’s preference for more government involvement in our lives is a theme that runs through every issue of The Lindsay Advocate. This, of course, is my opinion about TLA which I have as much right to express as Frank Morris has about the climate change crisis theory.

But Roderick, what about Energy Security and Food Security?

It's difficult to think of many things in modern life that do not depend on energy. Neither Frank Morris and Roberick Benns are experts in climate science. Nor am I an expert on energy, other than as a consumer.

With over seven decades of experience buying and using energy, I don’t need a PhD to understand the importance of energy and food security, especially since they are both closely related.

Energy Security is easy to define.

The availability of reliable and affordable energy needed to survive and thrive in all aspects of life. This is the fundamental basis of Energy Security. Anything that threatens this fact also threatens those who rely on it.

We all rely on fossil fuels for our vehicles and a wide range of productive equipment. We also rely on electricity for nearly everything else; most electricity is generated from fossil fuels. These are facts.

Both energy sources have risen in price.

Meanwhile, their reliablity has become increasingly tenuous since governments at all levels have meddled in those markets and promoted unreliable “green energy” alternatives.

Food Security is energy dependent.

High grocery bills and expensive restaurant meals are likely not a concern to a retired banker or the owner of a popular regional magazine. Frank and Roderick are not the folks you regularly hear about who struggle with this issue.

The family food budget is under attack from our governments. Just a little understanding of the supply chain dynamics of the food sector and the affect of punishing regulatory and taxation policies applied to it, will help average food shoppers appreciate how and how much!

Roderick will likely claim corporate greed and excessive executive compensation as the cause of the rising grocery bill. His NDP friends have told him this fiction so often that he believes it. Another victim of Marxist propaganda?

You may be thinking that I am committing the same sin as Frank and Roderick insomuch as my political values are influencing what I say in this post. You would be correct.

Since 1979, I began to pay attention to the growth of the public sector which has expanded steadily to unsustainable levels. The current size, cost and excessive authority of our government sector is now very unpopular among a growing number of concerned citizens.

I am a Less Government Advocate and proud to promote it.

My Libertarian values, Substack writing and my political campaigns are primary ways for me to publicly oppose the efforts of my adversaries - those who hope to add more government overhead to my life. My foes are every person who employs a mix of propaganda and activism to encourage citizens to vote for more laws, regulations, taxes and public debt to pay for their enforcement and generous government subsidies to their preferred groups.

Who do I trust? … Myself!

I am not responsible for what other people do.

I am responsible, however, to defend myself and protect my loved ones from harm and aggression without resorting to the use of force or violence. This is my personal ethical stance based on Libertarian principles.

Unfortunately, I feel like “one man against the world” because the world keeps closing in on my personal space.

I even consider obscure articles like that published by men like Frank Morris and Roderick Benns to be a form of harm and aggression against me because they promote and reinforce misinformation.

Too many readers will mindlessly accept their unsubstantiated claims to be credible.

Influenced by those articles, and without applying critical or informed thinking, their readers will be swayed to vote for more government “protection” which expanded public institutions will apply to EVERY CITIZEN whether they want it or not.

A Better Way

WHAT IF all governments in Canada operated on a SUBSCRIPTION basis?

WHAT IF this approach allowed and enabled every person to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of a range of government programs and their tax obligations.

WHAT IF a robust market of COMPETITIVE NON-GOVERNMENT service providers were allowed to exist to serve citizens who choose to OPT-OUT? Their tax savings would help to pay for these competitive options.

FREEDOM of INFORMED CHOICE is the core principle behind thIS OPT-IN, OPT-OUT subscription proposal. It also happens to be the core notion behind the very idea of DEMOCRACY.

I would no longer care about the campaigns of special interest organizations or their propaganda because I could easily OPT-OUT of any of the consequences of their self-serving efforts.

In our digital economy, this WHAT IF is possible and long overdue!

There is no technological reason why I should not be able to REJECT the CARBON TAX if I so choose. This can be enabled by registering this preference in a Citizen’s Preferenced Database (CPD). The CPD, and its supporting network infrastructure, will adjudicate my choices with every online, digital purchase transaction.

For example,  when re-fueling my car or topping up my home-heating propane tank, my registered choice to refuse the Carbon Tax would be respected with every payment. The same possibility will reduce the operating costs for every supply chain operator who relies on taxable energy in getting food to my grocer. Watch your food bill drop!

I can’t give you a precise number for how much this OPT-OUT choice might improve your Energy and Food Security, but I’m sure you’ll agree that “every little bit helps”.