Freedom Party items - sent by Bob Levitt - a critic of the Freedom PartyAttached, items 1 through 9 are ascii texts, either their public postings on Usenet which are all verifiable through dejanews.com, or items from their own website. -------------------------------------------------
Jack Plant was the former leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario and remains a member of their executive.
All these items were public postings and can be verified on the Usenet newsgroup archives at www.dejanews.com.
Any others are identified as to their source.
==================================================Jack Plant on how Adolf Hitler was a socialist (fp01.txt)
Hitler was a socialist........like you?
Jack Plant's "proof" that Hitler was a socialist (fp02.txt)
Jack Plant distributing claims that Hitler wasn't a Nazi (fp03.txt)
Jack Plant being unable to refute evidence dismisses the (fp04.txt)
statistics as fake as appears to be a habit of hisJack Plant backtracking when he can not support his claims (fp05.txt)
Jack Plant's response to one of the public complaints to (fp06.txt)
the Freedom Party spamming the newsgroups which at this
time they did to quite an extremeSomebody disproves the Freedom Party's claims and then they (fp07.txt)
of course claim that statistics prove nothing. The person
then responds by asking about why the Freedom Party had a
public meeting in which they were sponsored to speak by
Paul Fromm a member of the Heritage Front and founder of C-FAR?Jack Plant dismissing the claims about the public meeting (fp08.txt)
sponsored by Paul Fromm as "such nonsense".
Jack Plant is no longer the "Leader" of the Freedom Party
but is still on their executive according to their web siteIn the meantime Lloyd Walker the new "Leader" of the (fp09.txt)
admits and rationalizes about the public meeting they had
that was organized by Paul Fromm. So since Jack Plant
dismisses the item as "such nonsense" but Lloyd Walker
admits to it, one of them must be stating a lie.
At this time Lloyd Walker is now the "Leader", though both
are actively posting on the Internet for the Freedom PartyA person on the Internet questions what sort of people the (fp10.txt)
expected to recruit from a meeting organized by Paul Fromm
and advertised on the Heritage Front hotline and on a
White Supremist computer bulletin board system called
Digital Freedom.Jack Plant is being questioned about the Freedom Party (fp11.txt)
repeatedly posting their materials to can.schoolnet.---
newsgroups meant for school children, as well as also
targetting Canadian university newsgroupsOne of the postings by the Freedom to 51 newsgroups! (fp12.txt)
though they forget a comma and only reach 49 including the
can.schoolnet.--- newsgroups meant for children and
various Canadian university newsgroup"Pink influences in the big blue machine" from the (fp13.txt)
Freedom Party of Ontario's own website published in their
newsletter"The slumlord" from the Freedom Party of Ontario's own (fp14.txt)
website from one of their own newslettersThe Freedom Party's of Ontario's description of itself (fp15.txt)
as well as the claims that they have been documenting its
record of action in its newsletters when you can see from
the items above that they don't talk about their meeting
organized (and at first dismissed but later admitted to)
by a White Supremist, nor their former leader's (and still
executive member's) fetish for Adolf Hitler. This was
downloaded from their own website.
It seems like the Freedom's Party Jack Plant continues to have an
obsession with Adolph Hitler. Does he take every opportunity to bring
up the subject?From: jplant@freedomparty.org (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,bc.politics,can.politics,ont.politics
Subject: Re: FREEDOM PARTY
Message-ID: <3684e349.9036055@nr2.webgate.net>
References: <366aba85.364926@nr2.webgate.net> <F4FtL5.Foy.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:45:32 GMTOn Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:01:51 GMT, bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
wrote:>Lloyd Walker (lwalker@freedomparty.org) wrote:
>
>: Lloyd Walker
>: Party Leader
>: Freedom Party of Ontario
>
>If you are curious about the "Freedom Party" then you should check out
>http://www.interlog.com/~cjazz/fparty.htm
>
>and see some of their own public postings they would probably have us all
>forget about.
>Forget? Not really Bob.
Like what, that Hitler was a socialist........like you?
Jack Plant
"http://www.freedomparty.org"
------------------------------------------
(fp01.txt)
Subject: Re: HITLER'S SOCIALISM
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Date: 1996/12/30
Message-ID: <5a8u8v$m3b@van1s03.cyberion.com>
Newsgroups:
ab.politics,can.politics,bc.politics,ont.general,ca.politics,co.politics,
alt.politics.british,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,al
Paul Gardner <slippy@slippy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No-one to my knowledge has denied that both Hitler and Stalin were
>murdering, totalitarian dictators. The distinctions between them *are*
>meaningless to some extent - neither of them had anything to do with
>workers' control of the economy or any other true measure of socialism.Well actually, they did Paul, they both made noise, as most
socialist-collectivist politicians do, that they are the workers'
friend. Not for nothing was the NAZI party the socialist "workers"
party. Unfortunately, this is what "true" socialism always becomes in
practice. There has not been a single exception, that I know of.
(Where the socialist party has remained in power)Jack
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp02.txt)
Subject: HITLER CONFESSES: I WAS A SOCIALIST!!
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Date: 1997/01/13
Message-ID: <5blilj$g3c@van1s03.cyberion.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general[Subscribe to can.politics]
[More Headers]DEFINTE PROOF: HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
In a rare interview from the grave, that notorious Adolph Hitler
condescended to do an interview simply for the express purpose
of shutting up once and for all those hypocrites of the left whose
consciences will not allow them to admit to sharing with Fascism the
common and definitive characteristic of the use of force to achieve
their goals. In other words, the end justifies the means. Hitler, in
rare form, stated: "Oh yeah, I just got sick of having to watch
Harris, Kodish, Ranta, Carrick, Reilley, Hallick, et al just rant
onandonandonandon. I mean really, WHO CARES??? But I don't really
expect them to change their opinion, they're all so bullheaded. Oh,
well, if they won't take it from the horses mouth they'll have to
continue to look to the other end."Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp03.txt)
Subject: WAS ADOLF HITLER A NAZI?
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Date: 1997/05/11
Message-ID: <5l37s9$9jk@van1s03.cyberion.com>
Newsgroups:
ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,
nb.general,nf.general,ont.general,qc.general,tor.general
I thought everyone (I know, I know, I thought wrong right?) might find
this interesting (?).Was Adolf Hitler a NAZI?
By: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Why do "they" believe that Adolf Hitler was a nazi? Mainline
historians are under considerable pressure from Revisionist
scholarship and to address this blatant example of fraud and
falsehood.This great 20th century artist was never a member of the German nazi
party. Hitler was an Austrian for Pete's sake. Untill Anscluss he
couldn't even legally vote in Germany, so how could he have been a
member of German nazi party!!!! Not a single shred of "hard" evidence
as been brought forward to support this theory. No membership card, no
nothing!!! There was a feeble attempt to link Hitler to nazi
activities through the Hitler "diaries" -- but they were exposed as
the fraud they where through the efforts of leading revisionist
historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read historian writing
in English.In a recent interview self proclaimed "expert" on nazi war criminals,
Simon Wiesenthal and war criminals and nazism were asked if he could
provide any real scientific evidence that Adolf Hitler was a nazi. His
response were: "I am at loss". So we know now that everything that
Wiesenthal has said and written in his entire life are lies, lies,
lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies,
lies, lies.Adolf Hitler was the stage name for performing artist Adolf
Shickelgruber. He adopted "Hitler" as a stage name because the
high point of his performance was when everybody in the audience
shouted "Heil Shickelgruber". Because the name was so silly, the
shouting often ended with the audience audience convulsed with
laughter, which wasn't the intended artistic effect. After a brief
stint with "Harry" and "Herman", he ended up with "Hitler".The fact is that Hitler was not into politics. He spent most of the
war touring Germany with his act. He was a great admirer of
the jew Charlie Chaplin, and had tremendous success all over Germany
with live performances based on scences inspired by Chaplins movie:
"The Great Dictator".Very near the end of the war, Hitler and his jewish girlfriend, Ms.
Eva Braun, had an engagement at the "Fuhrer's Bunker" --
the "Ceasar's Palace" of Berlin. In the middle of performing his act,
the nightclub were attacked by communist bandits and everybody's
Bratwurst and Lowenbrau Bier were stolen. Hitler and Ms Braun first
starved to death and they were then murdered by the communists that
had attacked Germany from the East. Because Stalin needed a fall guy
for his own hideous crimes during the war -- he picked Hitler since he
also wore a moustache. Hitler -- being dead -- could not defend
himself. That's how this whole myth started!Now, if we all can agree that Hitler was not a nazi, perhaps this
thread can stop and this newsgroup move on to better times.
If you don't agree -- I'll repost this twice a month until the
chickens come home to roost...Banister CPU supports FREEDOM OF SCREECH. Currently quite feeble.
CALL: +88(88) 88 88 88 (8N1) [HH/v1/v2/v2bis available]
UUCP: Path (..binky!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI!!!
Users of Banister CPU are assuredly silly.
(fp04.txt)
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Rent Controls
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:44:27 GMT
Message-ID: <58u7ub$p61@van1s03.cyberion.com>
References: <584gjb$k73@van1s03.cyberion.com>
<E29ot1.Ax3.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
<58p2t6$3on@van1s03.cyberion.com>
<58sija$5ej@news.inforamp.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mp5-131.wwdc.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Ever heard the saying, "99.7% of statistics are made up"?
>You seem to ignore the fact that Bob - with whom I don't agree
>completely - quoted not only figures but the sources for those
>figures. He provides document numbers for published findings,
>should anyone serious doubt his honesty.>But, if you can't be bothered to read his post and notice this, then I
>doubt that your petty dismissal of his writings adds anything to the
>dscusson.>--
>Geoffrey Welsh, MIS Co-ordinator, InSystems Technologies (gwelsh@insystems.com)
> At home: xenitec.on.ca!zswamp!geoff; Temporary: crs0794@inforamp.net
> DO NOT SEND ANY FORM OF ADVERTISING TO ANY OF THESE ADDRESSESThanks for the insult, this seems to be a way of life with you people.
Bob's statistics are irrelevant aside from the fact that they are
imaginary. The issue is the right of the owner to the use and disposal
of his property, nothing else.
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp05.txt)
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Rent Controls
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 00:52:00 GMT
Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp.
Message-ID: <5bat3d$qld@van1s03.cyberion.com>
References: <199701062317.PAA06349@mailmasher.com> <E3p16H.8ps.0.queen@torfree.net>wparker@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>Do you have any public opinion polls to substantiate your claim that the
>vast majority of people are against it?This is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the majority is against it.
What matters is if it is right or wrong.
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp06.txt)
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,can.taxes,bc.politics,bc.general,
ab.general,ab.politics,man.general,ont.general,qc.general,
nb.general,nf.general,pei.
Subject: Re: OUR ONTARIO, OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:16:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp.
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <5f251e$loa@van1s03.cyberion.com>
References: <5euufk$65f@van1s03.cyberion.com> <E67pJI.J0.0.queen@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm3-37.wwdc.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt) wrote:
>Can you say "spam"? Wow! You posted this to 12 newsgroups plus tried
...plus a lot of complaints.
My response? Tough. Suck it up Bob!
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp07.txt)From torfree!bw201 Wed Mar 25 08:50:03 1998
Xref: torfree ab.general:57417 ab.politics:73569 bc.general:88487 bc.politics:82429 can.general:219608 can.politics:273707 nb.general:17365 nf.general:13573 ont.general:196512 qc.general:46266
tor.general:135275
Newsgroups: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,ont.general,
qc.general,tor.general
Path: torfree!bw201
From: bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
Subject: Re: RENT CONTROLS ARE PEOPLE CONTROLS
Message-ID: <EqDMGI.2HJ.0.queen@torfree.net>
Followup-To: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,ont.general,
qc.general,tor.general
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <35019735.24673171@news.wwdc.com> <3507EA2E.6F351D9E@arcos.org> <01bd4def$29af03a0$7784c8cf@lloyd> <35090C6F.DC4E522C@arcos.org> <01bd4e7b$82213440$6a84c8cf@lloyd> <Epvuqs.D7E.0.sheppard@torfree.net> <01bd5102$cdcb9e60$9f84c8cf@lloyd> <Eq3t68.8Ky.0.queen@torfree.net> <6f4kkq$dos@van1s03.cyberion.com> <EqCDp0.KLB.0.sheppard@torfree.net> <3518833b.33077340@news.wwdc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:21:53 GMTJack Plant (jplant@wwdc.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:14:59 GMT, bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
: wrote:: (The usual diatribe. I see no reason to repeat it.)
Why repeat it, when you appear unable to debate the issues?
: Bob, Bob, Bob,.....................
: What are we going to do with you.
: You love to go on and on and on, quoting reports and statistics ad
: nauseum.
: '
: They prove NOTHING.So you have two freedom party members (the leader and a past leader,)
who will not defend their own platform and all you can come up with is
that reports and statistics "prove nothing"? I would hate to see what
would happen if you ever came to power!: Freedom Party's platform is based on individual rights, which include,
: yes..........the right of each and EVERYONE of us to the use and
: disposal of THEIR OWN property, something you obviously disagree with.: Landlords have a RIGHT to THEIR propert just as anyone else does.
But what about that fact that taxpayers helped to pay for "THEIR property?"
Mr. Plant, you don't seem to want to answer that one. Now that they have
received taxpayer assistance to build (in the vast majority of cases of
highrises,) don't you think they have some obligations?: THIS is what Freedom Party's policy concerning rent control is based
: on, a fundamental principle.
: Rent controls are fundamentally IMMORAL.
: Get over it!
: Jack PlantYou talk about morality, when you used to plaster the newsgroups
especially the can.schoolnet groups with your spams? Why did you post
those things, including material about legalizing marijuana to childrens
newsgroups? Is this how you obtain new followers?And let's not forget your founder, and didn't he also author that article
you posted call Rent Controls Are People Controls, Robert Metz? The
following advertisement was on a computer bulletin board system
frequented by Paul Fromm called Digital Freedom which specializes
in White Supremist files and on the Heritage Front telephone hotline.
Mr. Metz did not appear to have any reservations about seeking new members
for the "Freedom Party," from C-FAR and the Heritage Front! Is this the
"Freedom" you talk about; the freedom to mislead people as to who you
are and what you represent? You made the mistake that I live within
walking distance of last year's event which was sponsored by Mr. Fromm's
group.Remember Mr. Fromm? He was the Etobicoke teacher who was transferred
from (history) teaching duties to administrative duties for teaching
revisionist history; he taught that the Holocaust was a fraud. Then Mr.
Fromm said he had no connections to White Supremist groups and then
video's of his speeches to the Heritage Front (with a swastika right by
him on the platform,) surfaced and were shown on television. And then
Mr. Fromm formed his own "immigration reform" organization called C-FAR.Do you care where you solicit new members from?
Here is the advertisement from last year:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:ROBERT METZ -- FREEDOM PARTY TO SPEAK
The Alternative Forum Presents
Robert Metz
President of Freedom Party of OntarioMy Battle with the Ontario Human Rights Commission
TORONTO. Tuesday, June 17, 1997. 8:00 p.m.
ADMISSION $5.00.
Swansea Town Hall -- Council Chamber -- 95 Lavinia Avenue
(just west of Runnymede and South of Bloor; get off at the Runnymede
Subway).Sorry, I can't attend.
* However, please send me the tape of Paul Fromm's talk. I enclose $6.00.
* I'd also like to assist with the costs of this meeting & the fight
against political censorship.
Here's my donation $_____.
Name:___________________________________
Address:________________________ _______
C-FAR, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3.
fp08.txt)
From torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!nntp.magma.ca!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!nntp.cs.ubc
.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.
sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!207.230.225.50!news.van.rns.net!van1s03.cyberion.com!news
Fri Mar 27 08:23:23 1998
Xref: torfree ab.general:57475 ab.politics:73679 bc.general:88745 bc.politics:82801 can.general:219972 can.politics:274289 nb.general:17390 nf.general:13613 ont.general:196607 qc.general:46322 tor.general:135466
Path: torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!nntp.magma.ca!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.
ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.
sprintlink.net!Sprint!207.230.225.50!news.van.rns.net!van1s03.cyberion.com!news
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,
ont.general,qc.general,tor.general
Subject: Re: Who are the "Freedom Party" . . . really?
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 05:08:05 GMT
Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3519e292.28625889@news.wwdc.com>
References: <EqDnx3.9G6.0.queen@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mp5-133.wwdc.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:53:26 GMT, bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
wrote:
<such nonsense>
Jack
Jack Plant
"http://www.freedomparty.org"
(fp09.txt)From torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!nntp.magma.ca!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!paralynx!paralynx-4!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup
-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!207.230.225.50!news.van.rns
.net!van1s03.cyberion.com!news Sat Mar 28 08:47:19 1998
Xref: torfree ab.general:57529 ab.politics:73738 bc.general:88805 bc.politics:82921 can.general:220041 can.politics:274448 nb.general:17414 nf.general:13646 ont.general:196639 qc.general:46347 tor.general:135505
Path: torfree!news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!nntp.magma.ca!news.uunet.ca!xenitec!paralynx!paralynx
-4!van-bc!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news
-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!207.230.225.50!news.van.rns.net!van1s03.cyberion.com!news
From: "Lloyd Walker" <lwalker@freedomparty.org>
Newsgroups: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,ont.
general,qc.general,tor.general
Subject: Re: Who are the "Freedom Party" . . . really?
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:45:07 -0500
Organization: Freedom Party Of Ontario
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <6fgho3$k4g@van1s03.cyberion.com>
References: <EqDnx3.9G6.0.queen@torfree.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mp4-106.wwdc.com
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3Bob Levitt wrote in message ...
>
>And let's not forget your founder, and didn't he also author that article
>you posted call Rent Controls Are People Controls, Robert Metz? The
>following advertisement was on a computer bulletin board system
>frequented by Paul Fromm called Digital Freedom which specializes
>in White Supremist files and on the Heritage Front telephone hotline.
>Mr. Metz did not appear to have any reservations about seeking new members
>for the "Freedom Party," from C-FAR and the Heritage Front! Is this the
>"Freedom" you talk about; the freedom to mislead people as to who you
>are and what you represent? You made the mistake that I live within
>walking distance of last year's event which was sponsored by Mr. Fromm's
>group.
1. No mistakes were made. We don't attend or not attend functions based on
where you live.2. Freedom Party has a history of working with any group or individual on
points we have in common. Paul Fromm's group was interested in the story of
Bob's dealing with the HRC. So, he spoke to them about it.3. Does this mean that we endorse everything that anyone we have ever spoken
to represents. No! We have spoken to groups on the left, the right and the
centre. Neither does it mean that we represent them as you appear to claim.We believe that through communication we can influence these groups to see
our ideas. It seems to me to be far more constructive than saying, "I don't
agree with everything you stand for, so get lost."If we stay true to our principles - "that each person in the peaceful
pursuit of personal fulfillment, has an absolute right to his or her own
life, liberty, and property" - we are in no danger of being subverted by any
group we deal with. Certainly, that is not the credo of a racist, as Mr.
Levitt tries to imply.4. Did we at any point misrepresent who we were? No! We have seen the
results of the misuse of the HRC tribunals. We have seen the ever-expanding
mandate that they seem to have. We consider them a danger to freedom of
speech. Even speech that I or the members of Freedom Party disagree with
must be protected. (There's those principles again.)
--
Lloyd Walker
Party Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
"http://www.freedomparty.org"
(fp10.txt)From torfree!bw201 Fri Mar 27 14:45:15 1998
Xref: torfree ab.general:57486 ab.politics:73705 bc.general:88777 bc.politics:82873 can.general:220014 can.politics:274376 nb.general:17402 nf.general:13624 ont.general:196626 qc.general:46333 tor.general:135486
Newsgroups: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,ont.general,qc.
general,tor.general
Path: torfree!bw201
From: bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
Subject: Re: Who are the "Freedom Party" . . . really?
Message-ID: <EqHp6v.4xp.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
Followup-To: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,ont.general,
qc.general,tor.general
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <EqDnx3.9G6.0.queen@torfree.net> <3519e292.28625889@news.wwdc.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:11:19 GMTJack Plant (jplant@wwdc.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:53:26 GMT, bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
: wrote:: <such nonsense>
: Jack
: Jack Plant
: "http://www.freedomparty.org"
Are you saying that since you can't refute what I have said you are
merely going to dismiss it, the same as on other threads where you
apparently are unable to refute what people say.I know for a fact that meeting happened in my area and I don't know
if others were held in other areas. Sorry, but I did not videotape
the meeting. I am sure it is still on the records of the centre where
the meeting was held.The meeting was sponsored by Paul Fromm, and from the adertising his
C-FAR organization, and his background was already outlined on the
first posting of this thread. Furthermore, the meeting was advertised
on both the BBS mentioned and the Heritage Front Hotline number, and
anybody who wants to investigate that further can contact groups who
monitor them.What sort of members would Mr. Metz (then President of your party,)
expect to recruit from an audience like that at that meeting?And since you have dismissed what I have posted, I will repost some
of your public postings, that certain reveal a lot about you.
Will you dismiss what you yourself have said too?And let's remember that these repostings were not just by Jack Plant,
but by "Jack Plant, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario."And of course the following blast-from-the-past begs the question,
who do you and your party think should decide what is right and what
is wrong?----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Rent Controls
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 00:52:00 GMT
Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp.
Message-ID: <5bat3d$qld@van1s03.cyberion.com>
References: <199701062317.PAA06349@mailmasher.com> <E3p16H.8ps.0.queen@torfree.net>wparker@torfree.net (Wil Parker) wrote:
>Do you have any public opinion polls to substantiate your claim that the
>vast majority of people are against it?This is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the majority is against it.
What matters is if it is right or wrong.
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp11.txt)
From torfree!bw201 Fri Mar 27 14:45:31 1998
Xref: torfree ab.general:57488 ab.politics:73707 bc.general:88779 bc.politics:82875 can.general:220016 can.politics:274378 nb.general:17404 nf.general:13626 ont.general:196628 qc.general:46335 tor.general:135488
Newsgroups: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.general,
ont.general,qc.general,tor.general
Path: torfree!bw201
From: bw201@torfree.net (Bob Levitt)
Subject: Re: Who are the "Freedom Party" . . . really?
Message-ID: <EqHpLB.5nz.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
Followup-To: ab.general,ab.politics,bc.general,bc.politics,can.general,can.politics,nb.general,nf.
general,ont.general,qc.general,tor.general
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <EqDnx3.9G6.0.queen@torfree.net> <3519e292.28625889@news.wwdc.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:19:59 GMTAnd here is another Jack Plant blast from the past.
I remember all the can.schoolent groups which are for public school students.
Why does your party crosspost so excessively. Is this a recruitment tactic?
Do you want to get them while they are young? I wonder what other
parties target or have targetting public school children."Please elaborate."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(fp12.txt)subject: THE ISSUE IS CONSENT!
From: jplant@wwdc.com (Jack Plant)
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <5b5slu$sno@van1s03.cyberion.com>
Newsgroups:
can.general,can.politics,can.taxes,bc.politics,bc.general,ab.general,
ab.politics,man.general,ont.general,qc.general,nb.general,nf.general,
pei.general,van.general,ott.general,ncf.general,tor.general,torfree.general,
kw.general,kingston.general,hamilton.general,sudbury.general,edm.politics,
can.gov.general,rye.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.economics,
can.university,can.university.grad,trentu.general,ualberta.general,ubc.general,
uottawa.general,usask.general,ut.general,york.general,uw.general,mcgill.general,
can.jobs,bc.jobs,ont.jobs,uwo.general,sci.econ,can.schoolnet.chat.students,
can.schoolnet.chat.students.sr,can.schoolnet.history,can.schoolnet.socsci.sr,
misc.immigration.canada,misc.immigration.misc,
alt.politics.immigrationont.general
THE ISSUE IS CONSENT!
Robert Metz
One of the greatest philosophical questions facing individual citizens
in any free society is: Where do we draw the line on individual
freedom?At what point in our many individual relationships should our freedom
to act be limited, and how can we morally, ethically, and legally
justify placing such limits on individual freedom?More importantly, before we can even begin to attempt answering such
questions, how can we learn to recognize the principle on which
individual freedom must be based? How can we know when it is proper to
restrict someone's freedom, or understand when we must not restrict
another's freedom?The answer to these questions is not as self-evident as many of us
would like to believe, but of one thing we may be certain: when an
issue involves any individual's freedom of choice, the issue is
consent.Consent.
There is possibly no other single concept more appropriate to use as
the defining point at what should be (or should not be) legally or
morally acceptable behaviour in a free society. Consent is the
underlying social concept behind a single principle that can be relied
upon both to protect individual freedom, and to limit the individual's
actions within society: the principle of individual rights.Most dictionaries define "consent" in two basic ways: (1) to be of one
mind, to agree; concord, (2) voluntary allowance or acceptance of
something done or proposed; permission, approval.For all practical purposes, it is the second definition that is most
appropriate, since, within its context, the first definition is
already included. Using this second definition, it soon becomes
apparent that there is more involved to the issue of consent
than first meets the eye.For example, consent does not necessarily imply agreement. In a free
society, we consent to many things that we may not agree with, or even
necessarily like.People who accept circumstances that may be unpleasant or
uncomfortable in their personal relationships can be said to be
consenting to their circumstances by refusing to act or change their
circumstances. Yet, others might argue that certain circumstances may
be "beyond one's control", and thus not comprise an act of consent.Regrettably, the term "consensual act" almost has a derogatory meaning
attached to it; it is so often associated with acts of
sex, that many people forget that consent should be the working
principle behind all human relationships.Indeed, it is remarkable how important the concept of consent is when
it comes to sex, one of the most personal aspects of
human relationships. The determination of its presence or absence may
well be the deciding factor in finding someone guilty of
rape, assault, forced confinement, etc. It is clear, that in such
cases, the absence of consent involves the initiation of the use of
force, an act that should be banned by all civilized societies.Yet, for some reason never fully explained by those in authority, the
issue of consent is virtually ignored (or consciously left
undefined) in determining the individual's freedom of action ---
whenever it pertains to politics.Sad to say, when it comes to politics, the principle of consent has
been abandoned in favour of another principle that is increasingly
confused with it: the principle of consensus. Unlike consent, which is
based entirely on voluntary interaction, consensus holds that any
"majority" may do whatever it likes to any "minority", and this
philosophy demands that a society be based on forced relationships.Regrettably, consensus (not consent) has become the predominant
political philosophy in play today, and its effects on our
deteriorating freedoms cannot be understated.Because tenants happen to outnumber landlords, we have rent controls
--- despite the fact that rent controls completely violate the direct
consensual relationship between landlords and tenants.Because the lobby groups and special interests against freedom of
choice in Sunday shopping happen to be better organized than the
millions of unorganized individuals who actually shop on Sundays, we
have Sunday closing laws --- despite the fact that those who shop on
Sundays are indicating their consent by doing so.Because a "majority" of employees may vote to ratify a union to
represent all employees in their place of employment, the
"minority" can be legally forced to pay dues to an association they
have not consented to support --- or even agree with.Public consensus is not a principle or ideology; it is, in fact, an
anti-ideology.Consensus is not a principle on which human relationships can be
based, but a rationalization of a means to arrive at some given
conclusion. By dealing with the rights of individuals on the basis of
consensus, individuals are turned into numbers, with the greater
number on any given issue being called the "majority" and given the
legal right to impose its decisions on the minority --- without the
minority's consent.Politically and socially, consensus results in a compromise between
individual freedom and government controls, and thus leads to a
society run by pressure groups, lobby groups and special interests.Under the principle of consensus, legal principles of justice begin to
erode to the point where justice no longer depends upon objective
evidence or individual rights, but upon the opinion of some given
majority.Under the principle of consensus, governments eventually cease
representing rights and begin to represent interests.That's why, more than ever before, it has become necessary to refocus
our attention back on the only social concept consistent with living
in a free society: the principle of consent.It is consent that allows individuals the freedom of choice that so
many take for granted. It is consent that allows us to choose our
marriage partners, our business relationships, our employees, our
employers, our customers, etc.The anatomy of consent is voluntarism. When people consent --- even to
disagree! --- force becomes an unnecessary and non-existent element in
human relationships.Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jplant@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
(fp13.txt) Freedom Party of Ontario (CANADA) - Freedom Flyer 29 - Mar 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Freedom Flyer 29
the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of OntarioMarch 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article electronically reproduced from:id Magazine
August 3-16, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pink Influences in the Big Blue MachineSome capitalist proposals for Mr. Harris
by Nate Hendley
"I fear the U.S. is headed for socialism, which means, of course,
ever increasing interference in the business of each citizen.
Whatever happened to the glorious frontier, of minding one's own
business? The word liberal has come to stand for the most damnable
tyranny, a snivelling, mealymouthed tyranny of bureaucrats, social
workers, psychologists and union officials. The world of 1984 is not
even 30 years away."- William S. Burroughs, letter to Jack Kerouac, 1950
Do reds run the big blue machine? On surface it seems a ludicrous question,
especially in light of newly elected Mike Harris' propensity for drastic budget
slashing. According to Robert Metz, leader of the fanatically pro-business,
pro-capitalism Freedom Party of Ontario, premier Harris is in fact little more
than an ineffectual left-winger, while the Tory party is doing more for the
cause of socialism then then socialists themselves."The Tories have completely bought the socialist argument that capitalism is
greedy and selfish," Metz, whose laissez-faire capitalist beliefs are as
rock-hard as his London, Ontario based Freedom Party is obscure. "That's based
on a false moral premise. There's nothing more greedy than socialists, because
they want to take money that wasn't earned by them."Agreed, but does that make the conservatives a bunch of pinks in blue suits?
According to Metz, it does."The PCs are still committed to spending other people's money for other
people," he says. "Mike Harris is still committed to universal programs which
are not sustainable. I call them the Socialist conservatives, not Progressive
conservatives."Which would come as news for Mr. Harris, the former golf pro turned politician,
though Metz's angry accusations do make more sense after you hear his
definition of socialism."Socialism," Metz says, "is the use of government force to enact any kind of
government objective - often a benign objective, such as helping the poor."Metz further clarifies his definition by adding "socialism means robbing Peter
to pay Paul... the philosophy of all collectivist governments."Metz's classification of Harris as "leftist" is supported by other figures who
make up part of the amorphous body politic vaguely known as "the right wing."
Although he might be offended at being labelled "right," Hill Cox of the
Libertarian Party of Canada, like Metz, also fanatically believes in a pure
capitalist system, with as little government interference in the lives and
livelihoods of the citizens in the province. This apparently is also what Mike
Harris believes in though Cox doesn't think so.Cox defines socialism as "a system that promises a free lunch. Promises you
something that someone else will pay for. Communism without the guns." He
agrees with Metz's depiction of the Harris Tories as a left-wing force.Most critics of Harris, however, would suggest the premier is promising
anything but a "free lunch" to the denizens of the province, especially those
with low incomes. Harris' finance minister Ernie Eves has announced cuts to
government programs in the neighbourhood of $1.96 billion. In an attempt to
keep the province's estimated $8.7 billion deficit for the current fiscal year
from rising, the Tories have chopped significant funding from public housing,
pay equity programs, subsidized day care and, most controversially, welfare. As
announced on July 21, welfare recipients will be receiving a cut of over 20% on
their payments, a situation that has led to heated protests across Ontario from
people on social assistance.None of which impresses Cox or Metz much.
The nearly two billion in cuts Eves has announced will basically cover the drop
in federal transfer payments for next year, Cox says.In any case, Cox would like to see the welfare system - along with unemployment
insurance, and the Workman's Compensation Board - completely privatized, and
out of government hands. To his mind, "The best way to help the poor is to
lower their taxes," not increase their welfare rates, he claims.Harris has in fact promised to slash income tax, but Cox and Metz feel this is
a political bluff which he will be unable to accomplish without significantly
lowering the deficit first. And he won't be able to lower the deficit without
some drastic overhauling of the system.To be fair, Harris has promised some pretty major changes to the welfare
system, mainly in the form of the program known as "workfare." Workfare is,
depending on your political perspective, either cheap forced labour or a way to
make freeloaders work for a living. Those who take the latter view consider
workfare a brilliant conservative program that will save huge tax dollars
currently given out in the form of free money for welfare recipients.Ultra pro-capitalist Metz however, doesn't support workfare at all.
Workfare is "destructive," he states. "Number one, it hands jobs that don't
exist to people and number two, it takes jobs from other people who already
have them. Also, where exactly is this money coming from for workfare?"Unmentioned by its supporters is the fact that workfare would merely replace
one inefficient government bureaucracy with another, as welfare bureaucrats
took to administering training and job placement programs instead of doling out
checks. State run enterprise and money-making efficiency are usually not
synonymous terms. As the Economist magazine has pointed out, administering
workfare might end up costing even more money than the current system of
welfare.If workfare then is a farce, announced cuts to day-care subsidies are not.
Writing in the Toronto Star under the provocative headline, "Smashed: the hopes
of countless women and children" Michele Landsberg writes of how the day-care
subsidy cuts will have a massively negative impact on women who work in
day-care centres and kids who attend them. The "meagre pay" of female day care
workers, "averages about $28,000 in Metro" Landsberg notes. Landsberg, we can
assume, has not applied for any entry level positions in the workforce for some
time for she considers this a poverty-level salary and is horrified that these
wages might go down even further in the face of Tory cuts. While her reaction
to the reality of salary levels in the mid-90s might be a little off, Landsberg
does accurately point out that cuts to day-care subsidies will hurt low income
parents who rely on government support to keep their kids in day-care.'Let's assume there's an element of truth there," Cox says of Landsberg's
column. "She wants the government to help out. But government has to make other
people poor to help the poor."Robbing Peter to pay Paul, in other words.
Cox continues, "The state should not become the parents of kids. The best way
to help single parents is to make sure that the money a single parent worker
makes is worth something, not subsidizing day-care. In other words, make it so
a single parent doesn't have to pay as much in taxes."Once those kids are old enough to leave day-care, they face a public education
system that is hardly running at peak performance. The Common Sense Revolution
book says very little about schooling, except for the banal statement that
"classroom funding for education will be guaranteed." Beyond that, Harris has
not proposed any truly radical measures for education. Metz and Cox have a few
of their own, none of which are likely to be adopted by premier Harris any time
soon. Metz suggests granting parents the right to direct their children and
their educational taxes to the institute of their choice. Teachers, he
believes, should also be able to start their own schools if they so desire.
Cox, for his part, wants to see education privatized.Actually, Cox and Metz would like to privatize just about everything from
health care down. Cox even suggests services such as water companies be run on
a private business basis.The logic behind their fierce belief in the private sector is rooted in the
libertarian ideal of getting government off people's backs, for real, and the
fact that the province, and nation as a whole, is basically broke. Cox in fact
predicts a somewhat gloomy financial scenario whereby the province hits a "debt
wall" sometime before the year 2000, at which point we default on our debt
payments and Moody's downgrades our credit rating to a Gentleman's "C" or
lower. This would in turn mean the province couldn't off-load their bonds,
affecting the Canadian dollar, which would collapse, destroying millions of
people's savings. "There will be some rioting the streets when this happens,"
Cox predicts.This isn't just fiscal ranting from the leader of a party which will probably
never win any seats in the House of Commons.Cities, states, even whole countries can and do go bankrupt or come close to
it. Orange County, California, through a combination of disastrous stock market
speculation and financial mismanagement, recently announced bankruptcy. Public
services in Orange County have been drastically slashed, not for any
ideological reasons but simply because the county is broke. Ten years ago, New
Zealand sailed very close to the economic abyss. This happened after the New
Zealand government tried to artificially support the agricultural sector with
subsidies, following a drop in sales of agricultural products to Europe.The New Zealand economy "hit the wall," as Cox puts it. The socialist Labour
party who were ruling at the time were forced to implement "the most
conservative [economic] measures," says Metz, "and they worked. They had
billboards on hospitals, on police cars." As detailed in the fall 1989 edition
of Fortune magazine, "Controls on foreign exchange, as well as extensive wage
and price strictures, were scrapped. Tariffs and taxes were cut and a host of
government corporations from Petrocorp, the state oil company, to Air New
Zealand were privatized." The agricultural sector lost many of their subsidies
and "sheep farmers did riot, but now the agricultural business there is very
lucrative," Cox says. The Fortune magazine article did note that the "festival
of deregulation has had one unhappy side effect: an unemployment rate of 9%,
the highest since the 1930s" but through these measures New Zealand saved
itself from financial insolvency. Cox expresses the opinion that such a fiscal
near-disaster along the lines of the New Zealand experience could come to this
province, especially in light of the fact Ontario has been gradually losing its
manufacturing base, traditionally the main source of wealth for the province.
High-tech industries such as computers and computer software are not adequate
replacements for manufacturing concerns, he says, being industries that
are"very volatile and portable." Instead of trying to lure high-tech firms, who
might move out in a couple years, Ontario should try to maintain its
manufacturing base, Cox says. To do this, the province should cut universality
of social programs, eliminate the minimum wage and set up free trade zones in
the province."None of which, of course, Mike Harris is prepared to do.
Cox's free trade zone idea however, remains an intriguing capitalist
suggestion, one that the supposed free market supporter Mike Harris might be
apt to study.A free trade zone would be an area in which "you would have no G.S.T., no
P.S.T., no trade taxes, no manufacturing taxes. No government taxes at all.
People could work there voluntarily." There would also be no worker safety and
pollution regulations, though Cox feels these concerns could best be addressed
by "private insurance companies."Cox says free trade zones are coming soon regardless of whose party occupies
power at Queen's Park.Whether such proposed free trade zones would be the economic salvation of the
province, or turn into neo-Dickensian pits of wage slavery, or both, remains to
be seen. For the moment, however, both Metz and Cox argue that the fuel which
drives Mike Harris' "conservative" financial policy has more to do with public
opinion polls which reflect a growing right-wing attitude in the province than
deeply held economic ideology."Harris' party is based on being in control," Cox says. "Based on power. In
that, his party is no different than other parties. Harris will be as left as
he wants to be, or as right as he wants to to be elected. Bob Rae follows the
same thing.""There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or
impropriety of government is customarily tested. People decide
according to their personal preferences.Some, whenever they see any
good to be done or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the
government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear
almost any amount of social evil rather than add one to the
departments of human interests amendable to government control."-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues Index Search | About Freedom Party | Products And Services |
Newsletters
Publications And Literature | Feedback And Comments | Back To Home Pagefeedback@freedomparty.org
Freedom Party of Ontario
(fp14.txt)
Freedom Party of Ontario (CANADA) - Consent 20 - Mar 1994ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
³ Consent #20 March 1994 ³ ³
³ ³ To Table of Contents ³
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
The SlumlordWalter Block
(A Freedom Party supporter, Dr. Walter Block was past senior economist with the
Vancouver-based Fraser Institute and now teaches economics at Holy Cross
College in Worcester, Massachusetts. The following essay originally appeared
in his 1976 book, Defending The Undefendable, and was introduced as an exhibit
by Freedom Party leader Robert Metz when he defended London landlord Elijah
Elieff before an Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry in 1993.
(See Dec/93 Freedom Flyer.) Surprisingly (given the venue), Block's arguments
seemed to carry a significant amount of weight during the final arguments
pertaining to Elieff's defence before the board.)To many people, the slumlord --- alias ghetto landlord and rent gouger --- is
proof that man can, while still alive, attain a satanic image. Recipient of
vile curses, pin-cushion for needle bearing tenants with a penchant for voodoo,
exploiter of the downtrodden, the slumlord is surely one of the most hated
figures of the day.The indictment is manifold: he charges unconscionably high rents; he allows
his buildings to fall into disrepair; his apartments are painted with cheap
lead paint which poisons babies, and he allows junkies, rapists and drunks to
harass the tenants. The falling plaster, the overflowing garbage, the
omnipresent roaches, the leaky plumbing, the roof cave-ins and the fires, are
all integral parts of the slumlord's domain. And the only creatures who thrive
on his premises are the rats.The indictment, highly charged though it is, is spurious. The owner of ghetto
housing differs little from any other purveyor of low cost merchandise. In
fact, he is no different from any purveyor of any kind of merchandise. They
all charge as much as they can.First, consider the purveyors of cheap, inferior, and secondhand merchandise as
a class. One thing above all else stands out about merchandise they buy and
sell: it is cheaply built, inferior in quality, or secondhand.A rational person would not expect high quality, exquisite workmanship or
superior new merchandise at bargain rate prices; he would not feel outraged and
cheated if bargain rate merchandise proved to have only bargain rate qualities.
Our expectations from margarine are not those of butter. We are satisfied with
lesser qualities from a used car than from a new car. However, when it comes to
housing, especially in the urban setting, people expect, and even insist upon,
quality housing at bargain prices.But what of the claim that the slumlord overcharges for his decrepit housing?
This is erroneous. Everyone tries to obtain the highest price possible for what
he produces, and to pay the lowest price possible for what he buys. Landlords
operate this way, as do workers, minority group members, socialists,
babysitters, and communal farmers. Even widows and pensioners who save their
money for an emergency try to get the highest interest rates possible for their
savings.According to the reasoning which finds slumlords contemptible, all these people
must also be condemned. For they "exploit" the people to whom they sell or
rent their services and capital in the same way when they try to obtain the
highest return possible. But, of course, they are not contemptible --- at
least not because of their desire to obtain as high a return as possible from
their products and services. And neither are slumlords. Landlords of
dilapidated houses are singled out for something which is almost a basic part
of human nature --- the desire to barter and trade and to get the best possible
bargain.The critics of the slumlord fail to distinguish between the desire to charge
high prices, which everyone has, and the ability to do so, which not everyone
has. Slumlords are distinct, not because they want to charge high prices, but
because they can. The question which is, therefore, central to the issue ---
and which the critics totally disregard --- is why this is so.What usually stops people from charging inordinately high prices is the
competition which arises as soon as the price and profit margin of any given
product or service begins to rise. If the price of Frisbees, for example,
starts to rise, established manufacturers will expand production, new
entrepreneurs will enter the industry, used Frisbees will perhaps be sold in
secondhand markets, etc. All these activities tend to counter the original
rise in price. If the price of rental apartments suddenly began to rise
because of a sudden housing shortage, similar forces would come into play. New
housing would be built by established real estate owners and by new ones who
would be drawn into the industry by the price rise. Old housing would tend to
be renovated; basements and attics would be pressed into use. All these
activities would tend to drive the price of housing down, and cure the housing
shortage.If landlords tried to raise the rents in the absence of a housing shortage,
they would find it difficult to keep their apartments rented. For both old and
new tenants would be tempted away by the relatively lower rents charged
elsewhere.Even if landlords banded together to raise rents, they would not be able to
maintain the rise in the absence of a housing shortage. Such an attempt would
be countered by new entrepreneurs, not party to the cartel agreement, who would
rush in to meet the demand for lower priced housing. They would buy existing
housing, and build new housing. Tenants would, of course, flock to the
non-cartel housing. Those who remained in the high price buildings would tend
to use less space, either by doubling up or by seeking less space than before.
As this occurs it would become more difficult for the cartel landlords to keep
their buildings fully rented. Inevitably, the cartel would break up, as the
landlords sought to find and keep tenants in the only way possible: by
lowering rents. It is, therefore, specious to claim that landlords charge
whatever they please. They charge whatever the market will bear, as does
everyone else.An additional reason for calling the claim unwarranted is that there is, at
bottom, no really legitimate sense to the concept of overcharging.
"Overcharging" can only mean "charging more than the buyer would like to pay."
But since we would all really like to pay nothing for our dwelling space (or
perhaps minus infinity, which would be equivalent to the landlord paying the
tenant an infinite amount of money for living in his building), landlords who
charge anything at all can be said to be overcharging. Everyone who sells at
any price greater than zero can be said to be overcharging, because we would
all like to pay nothing (or minus infinity) for what we buy.Disregarding as spurious the claim that the slumlord overcharges, what of the
vision of rats, garbage, falling plaster, etc.? Is the slumlord responsible
for these conditions? Although it is fashionable in the extreme to say "yes",
this will not do. For the problem of slum housing is not really a problem of
slums or of housing at all. It is a problem of poverty --- a problem for which
the landlord cannot be held responsible. And when it is not the result of
poverty, it is not a social problem at all.Slum housing with all its horrors is not a problem when the inhabitants are
people who can afford higher quality housing, but prefer to live in slum
housing because of the money they can save thereby. Such a choice might not be
a popular one, but other people's freely made choices which affect only them
cannot be classified as a social problem. (If that could be done, we would all
be in danger of having our most deliberate choices, our most cherished tastes
and desires characterized as "social problems" by people whose taste differs
from ours.)Slum housing is a problem when the inhabitants live there of necessity --- not
wishing to remain there, but unable to afford anything better. Their situation
is certainly distressing, but the fault does not lie with the landlord.On the contrary, he is providing a necessary service, given the poverty of the
tenants. For proof, consider a law prohibiting the existence of slums, and,
therefore, of slumlords, without making provision for the slum dwellers in any
other way, such as providing decent housing for the poor, or an adequate income
to buy or rent good housing. The argument is that if the slumlord truly harms
the slum dweller, then his elimination, with everything else unchanged, ought
to increase the net well-being of the slum tenant. But the law would not
accomplish this. It would greatly harm not only the slumlords but the slum
dwellers as well. If anything, it would harm the slum dwellers even more, for
the slumlords would lose only one of perhaps many sources of income; the slum
dwellers would lose their very homes. They would be forced to rent more
expensive dwelling space, with consequent decreases in the amount of money
available for food, medicines and other necessities.No. The Problem is not the slumlord; it is poverty. Only if the slumlord were
the cause of poverty could he be legitimately blamed for the evils of slum
housing.Why is it then, if he is no more guilty of underhandedness than other
merchants, that the slumlord has been singled out for vilification? After all,
those who sell used clothes to Bowery bums are not reviled, even thought their
wares are inferior, the prices high, and the purchasers poor and helpless.
Instead of blaming the merchants, however, we seem to know where the blame lies
--- in the poverty and hopeless condition of the Bowery bum. In like manner,
people do not blame the owners of junk yards for the poor condition of their
wares or the dire straits of their customers. People do not blame the owners
of "day-old bakeries" for the staleness of the bread. They realize, instead,
that were it not for junkyards and these bakeries, poor people would be in an
even worse condition than they are now in.Although the answer can only be speculative, it would seem that there is a
positive relationship between the amount of governmental interference in an
economic arena, and the abuse and invective heaped upon the businessmen serving
that arena. There have been few laws interfering with the "day-old bakeries"
or junkyards, but many in the housing area. The link between government
involvement in the housing market and the plight of the slumlord's public image
should, therefore, be pinpointed.That there is strong and varied government involvement in the housing market
cannot be denied. Scatter-site housing projects, "public" housing and urban
renewal projects, zoning ordinances and building codes, are just a few
examples. Each of these has created more problems that it has solved. More
housing has been destroyed than created, racial tensions have been exacerbated,
and neighbourhoods and community life have been shattered.In each case, it seems that the spillover effects of bureaucratic red tape and
bungling are visited upon the slumlord. He bears the blame for much of the
overcrowding engendered by the urban renewal program. He is blamed for not
keeping his buildings up to the standards set forth in unrealistic building
codes, which if met, would radically worsen the situation of the slum dweller.
(Compelling "Cadillac housing" can only harm the inhabitants of "Volkswagen
housing". It puts all housing out of the financial reach of the poor.)Perhaps the most critical link between the government and the disrepute in
which the slumlord is held is the rent control law. For rent control
legislation changes the usual profit incentives, which put the entrepreneur in
the service of his customers, to incentives which make him the direct enemy of
his tenant-customers.Ordinarily the landlord (or any other businessman) earns money by serving the
needs of his tenants. If he fails to meet these needs, the tenants will tend
to move out. Vacant apartments mean, of course, a loss of income.
Advertising, rental agents, repairs, painting and other conditions involved in
rerenting an apartment mean extra expenditures. In addition, the landlord who
fails to meet the needs of the tenants may have to charge lower rents than he
otherwise could. As in other businesses, the customer is "always right," and
the merchant ignores this dictum only at his own peril.But with rent control the incentive system is turned around. Here the landlord
can earn the greatest return not by serving his tenants well, but by
mistreating them, by malingering, by refusing to make repairs, by insulting
them. When the rents are legally controlled at rates below their market value,
the landlord earns the greatest return not by serving this tenants, but by
getting rid of them. For then he can replace them with higher paying non-rent
controlled tenants.If the incentive system is turned around under rent control, it is the
self-selection process through which entry to the landlord "industry" is
determined. The types of people attracted to an occupation are influenced by
the type of work that must be done in the industry. If the occupation calls
(financially) for service to consumers, one type of landlord will be attracted.
If the occupation calls (financially) for harassment of consumers, then quite a
different type of landlord will be attracted. In other words, in many cases
the reputation of the slumlord as cunning, avaricious, etc., might be
well-deserved, but it is the rent control program in the first place which
encourages people of this type to become landlords.If the slumlord were prohibited from lording over slums, and if this
prohibition were actively enforced, the welfare of the poor slum dweller would
be immeasurably worsened, as we have seen. It is the prohibition of high rents,
by rent control and similar legislation, that causes the deterioration of
housing.It is the prohibition of low-quality housing, by housing codes and the like,
that causes landlords to leave the field of housing. The result is that
tenants have fewer choices, and the choices they have are of low quality. If
landlords cannot make as much profit in supplying housing to the poor as they
can in other endeavors, they will leave the field. Attempts to lower rents and
maintain high quality through prohibitions only lower profits, drive slumlords
out of the field, leaving poor tenants immeasurably worse off.It should be remembered that the basic cause of slums is not the slumlord, and
that the worst "excesses" of the slumlord are due to governmental programs,
especially rent control. The slumlord does make a positive contribution to
society; without him, the economy would be worse off. That he continues in his
thankless task, amidst all the abuse and vilification, can only be evidence of
his basically heroic nature.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents for Consent #20 - Mar 1994No Such Thing: By William Trench
Taxation - "Fairness" And Unintended Consequences: By Kenneth H. W. Hilborn
The Slumlord: By Walter Block
We Are The Future: By Jack Plant
The Meaning Of A Free Market Economy: By John R. Ferguson
Identity Crisis: By Danielle Metz
Top of Page
Issues Index Search | About Freedom Party | Products And Services |
Newsletters
Publications And Literature | Feedback And Comments | Back To Home Pagefeedback@freedomparty.org
Freedom Party of Ontario
(fp15.txt) Freedom Party of Ontario (CANADA) - Ontario PageFreedom Party of Ontario (Canada)
Ontario Page
ÚÄÄ¿
³ ³
³ ³
ÃÄÄ´
³ ³
³ ³
ÀÄÄÙ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquartered in London, Ontario, Freedom Party has been working for individual
freedom, lower taxes, and free enterprise on a full-time basis since the party
was founded on January 1, 1984. Far more than just a political party which
fields candidates during Ontario elections, Freedom Party also lobbies,
educates, and supports groups and individuals - anywhere - who share our
freedom philosophy.Freedom. Responsibility. Inseparable.
Freedom is having the right to choose, and it is our freedom of choice that is
at the heart of every political issue. Unfortunately, most political
parties, often with the best of intentions, recommend or enforce policies that
seriously restrict individual freedom, and thus end up with the worst of
results.Freedom Party was founded on combining the best of both liberal and
conservative values: personal freedom combined with individual responsibility.
When separated, freedom and responsibility often come into conflict with each
other. Together, they are the blue print for a better Ontario - and a better
world.Discover Freedom Party...
Funded entirely through voluntary contributions (tax-creditable in Ontario),
Freedom Party has been documenting its Record of Action in its official party
newsletter, Freedom Flyer. A sister publication, Consent, is the party's
forum for opinion and discussion on many Issues and ideas.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle and PolicyRecord of Action - 1984-1996
Leadership and Executive
Membership and Support
Contributions and Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues Index Search | About Freedom Party | Products And Services |
Newsletters
Publications And Literature | Feedback And Comments | Back To Home Pagefeedback@freedomparty.org
Last revised: December 30, 1997
============================================================