U.S. Food & Beverage Export Trends Where is the Demand?

Back across the pond, Richard Cobden and John Bright formed a political alliance opposed to imperialism and war, believing that repealing the UK's protectionist Corn Laws would shift the country away from paternalistic imperialism and toward a more peaceful world, possibly without meaningful national borders.After all, libertarianism without socialism is still libertarianism with a purpose. However, the appearance may differ significantly. According to Zwolinski and Tomasi, post-Cold War libertarianism has begun to divide into three camps: paleolibertarianism, bleeding-heart libertarianism, and left-libertarianism.Paleolibertarianism emphasizes the supposed connection between freedom and culture. They highlight the importance of property rights in safeguarding national values by giving a theoretical foundation for the exclusion of outsiders (something other libertarians strongly oppose). Paleolibertarians believe that individuals are fundamentally conservative and are skeptical of cosmopolitanism and progressive ideas. This type of libertarianism is well-suited to the "New Right" and national conservatism—though an alliance has not achieved the same popularity and influence as Cold War libertarianism.Bleeding-heart libertarians are driven by concerns of social justice, which stem from their belief that spontaneous ordering can produce both good and negative results, and that "Individual freedom is an ideal to be pursued together." Left-libertarians are driven by worries about concentrated and monopolistic power, notably corporate power. According to them, "Liberty is about solidarity—without the state." 

Left- and bleeding-heart libertarians may have. 

similar ideals, but paleolibertarians detest both social justice concerns and anything linked with the Left. Former allies may find themselves pitted against one another, but Zwolinski and Tomasi believe the war is far from done.The Individualists explores the history of libertarian thinking and proposes a model for understanding how political groups can vary depending on their settings and the people who drive them. Come for an explanation of why a Cold War political lens is ineffective for understanding libertarianism today; stay for a new way of thinking about our current reality. Is prayer appropriate in public spaces? This is the question that prompted a Quebec reporter to ask Pierre Poilievre why there were prayer rooms at last weekend's Conservative Party convention. In Canada, the answer to that question is location-dependent—which I believe is undervalued.If you live in English Canada, your answer will probably seem very similar to Pierre Poilievre's. You may not require a prayer room, but the fact that some individuals do should be received with a shrug (Poilievre provided a few examples). Prayer rooms are entirely normal—we have them in airports, hospitals, and a variety of other state-run and funded establishments. And it's not even a party issue; the Liberals also have them. As former Conservative staffer Garry Keller points out, it should come as no surprise.

The truth is that prayer is nearly omnipresent.

Cardus performed research with the Angus Reid Institute, which revealed that many people pray. Almost all religious individuals pray on a regular basis, and it may surprise some that even 10% of those who are spiritually uncertain pray at least once a month. What is particularly astonishing is that 2% of non-religious people—the same group that unanimously believes there is no God or higher power—pray! So, whether or not you wish to provide a space for people to pray, it is most certainly already happening all around you. According to Pew Forum research, "one in every five religiously unaffiliated Canadians say they pray, meditate, or engage in other forms of worship on their own at least once a month." As a result, the term 'nones' should not be confused with'secular' or 'non-religious.'" It's almost as if the religious impulse were a human characteristic!So, politics and the Constitution aside, Poilievre's shrug is exactly what we would expect from a sociological standpoint.Many people in English Canada have been outraged by the reporter's question's illiberalism. But I am not startled, and neither should you be. Quebec is not—and does not want to be—a very liberal province right now. And this isn't only because Quebec has the lowest religious commitment in Canada. Only 6% of Quebeckers are spiritually uncertain, whereas more than 57% regard themselves to be so—the lowest and greatest numbers in Canada, respectively.

But it's more than just personal; it's political.

After all, this is the province where wearing a hijab will get you fired as a public school teacher. It is a place where pupils enrolled in state schools are legally prohibited from praying in classroom rooms. You cannot be a judge while wearing a yarmulke or a police officer while wearing a turban. This was not an accident. The reporter is simply asking questions in accordance with political authorities who have declared—and a public that is largely supportive of—the explicit exclusion of religion from state-owned properties.As my buddy Dr. Robert Joustra wrote when Bill 21 was still an embryonic concept:This is, without a doubt, a form of secularism, but it is not the best kind, and it is not one that Canada should be identified with. Laïcité is a reimported civil religion that prioritizes the state over all other identities, religious or otherwise.For the record, I believe laïcité is a poor policy. It is misguided not only for legal reasons, not only because there are other, better ways for the state to take a principled and structural stance on religious freedom and its limits, not only because it is profoundly dehumanizing, but also, practically, because it is likely to exacerbate the very divisions and radicalism it seeks to prevent.But it has one thing going for it: honesty. Unlike many in English Canada, Quebeckers are forthright about their distrust of religion in public places. In this, they differ from many (not all!) English Canadians.