Tom Flanagan explains why we need Hayek's ideas about spontaneous order, institutions, and the limits of state control. Hayek will frustrate central planners and also anarchists. Libertarians can't depend on Hayek; he's too supportive of traditional institutions.

Professor Flanagan has taught a generation of political science students at the University of Calgary. He's informed so much of what the Right assumes in Canada. He's generous, thoughtful, and resists capture into a neat, political box.

Books mentioned:

Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools)

Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong

Articles mentioned:

Settler-Neoliberalism: Tom Flanagan and Friedrich Hayek on the Prairies | Canadian Historical Review

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Tom Flanagan about Friedrich Hayek, focusing on spontaneous order versus top-down organization and the state’s proper role in enforcing rules without directing outcomes. Flanagan explains spontaneous order through examples like language, markets, common law, and even skiing etiquette, and argues modern governments often create chaos by trying to control systems such as Canadian healthcare through price and quantity setting, producing persistent shortages and waitlists. The conversation explores Hayek’s assumptions about property, justice as a feature of fair process and intention rather than outcomes, and practical questions about unintended consequences in politics. Flanagan also discusses Canada’s formation through sovereignty claims, treaties, and force, defending treaty-making as broadly just for its time. He contrasts Hayek’s limits on “spiritual problems” with Voegelin’s strengths and notes he is not an Alberta separatist.

00:00 Hayek In A Nutshell

01:00 Show Intro And Guest

04:56 Flanagan Meets Hayek

06:08 Spontaneous Order Explained

07:02 Language As Emergence

09:50 Markets And Simple Rules

11:55 State Control And Healthcare

16:55 Ski Hill Rules And Enforcement

22:20 Property Justice And Tradition

27:49 Colonialism And Civilizing Mission

30:28 International Anarchy And Empire

35:40 Treaties and Education

36:51 Hayek Order vs Organization

38:16 Canada Built by Force

39:22 Morris and Prairie Treaties

42:03 Mirage of Social Justice

47:55 Intentions vs Outcomes

49:29 Weber and Policy Consequences

56:17 Hayek Meets Voegelin

01:03:13 Spiritual Pathology Politics

01:04:46 State Supports Spontaneous Order

01:08:28 Alberta Separatism and Wrap

Evan Menzies shows why Albertans should be furious. As an Albertan himself, he understands. And as a political consultant, he sees even more reasons to be upset than most Albertans have heard of. He is frustrated and doesn't hide it.

In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay.

The rest of Canada isn't paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn't be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed.

Here's the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative.

Thanks for listening! 

Let me know what you think.

Chapters and AI summary:

Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward.

00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes

01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro

05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted

08:02 Who Supports Leaving

11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate

15:40 House Seats and Time Zones

18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro

20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift

25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle

28:03 Why Stay In Canada

28:35 Three Reasons To Stay

31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks

33:04 Revolution Not Devolution

35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again

39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood

45:05 Gratitude And National Story

49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian

51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada

51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground

Ashley Moyse is a bioethicist and theologian at Baylor University. In America, he hails from the political left. If he was in his native Saskatchewan, he'd be centre-left or perhaps even right-wing to some people. 

Our conversation tackled technology, ethics, and humanity in professional education. How we can keep clinicians human and prevent them from becoming robots?

Although we situate the conversation in the health sciences, the concepts apply to every corner of society: engineering, finance, public policy, and more. 

Dr. Moyse has had some success in helping students see beyond the materialist reductionism of modern science. His work offers hope for other fields.

Let me know what you think in the comments!

Thanks for listening.

Shawn

Book mentioned:

The Art of Living for a Technological Age

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Ashley Moyse, associate professor of bioethics at Baylor University, about how technology, markets, and policy language reshape medicine and moral life. Moyse traces his path from neurophysiology and cancer-clinic work to theology and bioethics, including training in Australia and Oxford and creating the Columbia Character Cooperatives to form medical students through virtue-based practices. They critique the market metaphor of “provider,” arguing it distorts the clinician–patient relationship and turns people into producers and consumers of information. Moyse explains his book The Art of Living for a Technological Age and “techno-ontology,” expanding technology beyond devices to include moral and political techniques, and challenges Beauchamp and Childress’ four-principles framework as flattening ethics into efficient tools rather than lived moral struggle, formation, and attention over time.

00:00 Patients Not Data

00:45 Meet Dr Ashley Moyse

05:35 From Neurophysiology To Theology

08:39 Oxford Columbia Baylor Path

13:49 Techno Ontology Explained

14:54 Tools Beyond Gadgets

25:21 Four Principles Under Fire

32:55 Ethics As Struggle

33:46 Medicine as Craft

37:15 Virtue in Clinical Risk

39:19 Ethics Beyond Principles

43:05 Provider Language Critique

47:04 Metrics and Managerialism

49:53 Mentoring Against Positivism

58:32 Phenomenology in Practice

01:03:16 Technology as Principality

01:09:55 Closing Reflections

I asked Dr. Matthew Rowley for help with questions on political theology. It turns out he's another big supporter of independence for Alberta. 

The current Supreme Court hearings last week are pouring fuel on the Alberta separatist movement. The Mark Carney Liberals are intervenors on the SCC hearing about Quebec's Bill 21 and use of the notwithstanding clause (s.33). Carney is asking the Supreme Court to do an end-run around the constitution bypassing the amending formula.

Regardless of how the court rules, the fact that it had the gall to hear the case fuels Alberta's frustrations. 

We do discuss Dr. Rowley's insights on political theology, but most of our time focussed on the revolutionary nature of the SCC this week.

Please let me know what you think!

Thanks for listening,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Matthew Rowley about the Supreme Court of Canada hearing Quebec’s Bill 21 and whether limits can be placed on the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (s.33), which Rowley argues would further politicize the Court and trigger a constitutional crisis. They discuss federal intervention, the Charter’s impact on legislative supremacy, court power, secularism, and how differing regional cultures and views of government fuel Alberta’s separatist momentum. Rowley contrasts Alberta’s self-reliant ethos with Eastern Canada’s greater trust in government, critiques legal instrumentalism and the loss of duties tied to rights, and emphasizes internal justice and external defense as core governmental roles. The conversation also addresses political theology, the foundations of Western civilization, declining legitimacy and honor in politics, and the need for deeper, honest public debate.

00:00 Charter More American

01:26 Supreme Court Showdown

02:03 Bill 21 and Section

33 06:14 Court Power Grab Fears

10:35 Alberta Separatism Case

11:54 Prairie vs East Cultures

14:05 Charter Control and Courts

17:32 Rural Life and Tools

20:09 Where Rights Come From

22:28 Rights Need Responsibilities

26:21 Too Many Laws Problem

30:38 Government Role and Good

34:27 Law as Moral Boundary

37:14 Political Theology Setup

39:37 Behavior Versus Intentions

40:15 Where Evil Really Lies

41:19 Free Church And Mainline

42:25 Faith Shown By Works

43:59 Christian Roots Of The West

45:51 Conservatism As A Living Tree

49:12 Canada Loses First Principles

51:36 State Replacing God

54:10 Legitimacy And Stoplights

55:07 Crisis Of Secular Confidence

57:43 Young People Return To God

01:00:37 Responsible Government And Honor

01:05:07 Rebuilding Ancient Paths

01:08:33 Civitas And Honest Dialogue

01:10:45 Ralph Klein And Telling Truth

01:12:30 Closing Reflections And Farewell

Can AI replace teachers? Would students benefit?

Should classical schools -- great books curricula -- use AI? 

I tried very hard to get Dr. Grant Havers into trouble in this episode. But he was too smart to say anything that would offend school administrators.

Instead of picking a side in the pro- vs anti-AI debate, Dr. Havers worked to bring out issues and objectives. If we trust AI to think for us, what does that say about our own ability to think?

This debate will continue to invade every knowledge-based profession over the next few years. Maybe we will all be retraining as plumbers and electricians?

Looking forward to hearing what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Professor Grant Havers, chair of Philosophy at Trinity Western University and author of The Medium Is Still the Message, about AI’s role in education, especially in Great Books and classical Christian settings. Havers argues educators must study and discuss AI because media create “invisible environments” that reshape minds beyond intended uses, while warning against introducing AI into classrooms or outsourcing intellectual tasks like summarizing Plato. He questions why teachers would trust AI to write emails or handle routine work, suggesting it reflects a questionable belief that AI “thinks” better than humans, and distinguishes information processing from intelligence, intuition, and creativity. Framing AI as a new version of Plato’s cave, he calls for renewed emphasis on dialogue-based education, responsibility for beliefs, and awareness of technology’s addictive, idolatrous pull, while noting AI’s rapid real-time effects, including concerns about autonomous weapons in war.

00:00 AI in Education Today

00:42 Meet the Guest

03:22 Why Schools Want AI

05:09 Medium Shapes Minds

06:55 Outsourcing Thinking

11:02 AI as the New Cave

13:34 Mundane Tasks Debate

21:55 Addiction and Tradeoffs

23:42 Study Tech to Resist

27:02 Print Culture and Tropos

28:42 Medium Shapes the Mind

31:31 Intellectual Virtue and Soul

33:30 Left Brain Right Brain Limits

37:26 Reviving Dialogue Education

40:09 AI Empathy and Truth Seeking

43:30 Poison Books and Paradox

47:10 Idolatry Addiction and Narcissus

50:09 Hopeful Outlook and AI War

52:39 Book Wrap Up and Farewell

Dr. Paul Gottfried packages his writing in dynamite and grit. He uses an academic style which is now almost extinct on the political right.

No one tries to provoke in order to make a point anymore. The Left still uses it all the time, but not the Right.

You cannot listen to Gottfried with modern antennae tuned to gasp at every offence. If you do, you will miss the impact of his next three punches.

I lack the courage to match Gottfried's approach. I'd like to think it's because he's old enough to not care anymore, but he was doing the same things 30 years ago. Perhaps he's spent so much time reading historical writers that he adopted their approach?

Whatever the means and ways of Dr. Gottfried, you really need to know about his thought and content. 

Books discussed:

After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State

The Essential Paul Gottfried: Essays from 1984-2024

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Paul Gottfried, editor-in-chief of Chronicles Magazine, about his claim that “liberal democracy” no longer exists and functions as a self-justifying label for the welfare/managerial state and its hegemonic class. Gottfried argues liberalism was a 19th-century bourgeois worldview favoring constitutional limits, civil society, markets, property, nation-states, and restricted suffrage, and that it largely died in the early 20th century as mass democracy and collectivist ideologies replaced it. He critiques Straussian influence on U.S. conservatism, rejects natural rights as a fiction rooted in communities, and disputes claims that progressivism was imported from German philosophy. Discussing Carl Schmitt, he emphasizes intensifying friend–enemy conflict and collapsing common ground, calling the U.S. Constitution’s original design effectively a “dead letter” absent a supporting cultural tropos. He also promotes Chronicles’ 50th anniversary dinner at the Willard Hotel on April 9.

00:00 Does Liberal Democracy Exist

00:43 Meet Paul Gottfried

05:30 Lukacs Quote And Thesis

07:22 Mass Democracy And Welfare State

11:06 Defining 19th Century Liberalism

13:57 Liberalism Family And Stability

17:27 Roots From Greeks To Hegel

19:45 Strauss And The Neocons

22:55 Jaffa Marini And Natural Right

26:42 Grant And Universal State

29:08 Conservatism Incorporated Critique

33:12 Provocation And Dead Letter Constitution

33:45 Constitution Under Threat

34:34 Original Design vs Judges

35:24 Tropos and Postliberal Age

36:59 Protestant Roots of Republicanism

41:38 Welfare State and State Churches

47:34 Schmitt and Friend Enemy Politics

53:24 Managerial State and Control

55:53 Universalism vs Particularism

01:01:30 Closing Reflections and Plugs

Sam Duncan has worked in government for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. He is current VP at Wellington Advocacy.

We discuss a powerful article Sam wrote titled: Toward a conservative counter-elite.

Sam's article almost has enough content to outline a whole book. He diagnosed Canada's problems, uncovers the causes, and offers a detailed list of almost a dozen solutions.

I was able to press Sam on managerialism and the tendency for Conservatives to act like Liberal professional managers when in power. This is something I haven't sorted for myself: How do we fix things without becoming managerialist ourselves?

Sam is eloquent and very good on his feet.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks so much for listening.

Shawn

Chapters and AI Summary

Host Shawn Whatley welcomes Sam Duncan, VP at Wellington Advocacy and former advisor to Doug Ford and Stephen Harper, to discuss Duncan’s article “Toward a Conservative Counter Elite.” They argue Canadian conservatism lacks an emotional narrative and compelling national story, while politics often operates as a “uniparty” with small philosophical differences under liberal frameworks. Duncan reflects on conservatives’ failure to translate electoral success into lasting policy and cultural change and calls for developing a conservative counter-elite by reforming institutions that recruit and train leaders, rather than being merely anti-elite. The conversation covers populism, the need for unifying myths after the collapse of British identity, the impact of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s post-national multicultural vision, strengthening families and communities, the limits of managerialism, and building think tanks and long-term idea ecosystems to pressure politicians and sustain reforms.

00:00 What Conservatism Lacks

00:47 Show Intro and Guest

03:26 Why Write Counter Elite

05:42 Uniparty Explained

09:23 Populism Without Winning

12:38 Narrative Versus Demagoguery

15:56 Canada’s Missing Myth

20:25 Elites Formed Constrained Empowered

25:51 Selection and Institutional Coding

31:20 Beyond Policy Tweaks

32:12 Family First Principles

34:39 Daycare State Alternatives

36:13 Property Owning Democracy

38:01 Massey Commission Today

40:25 Building Conservative Institutions

43:34 Reforms That Stick

46:58 Politics Is Contest

49:38 Winning Versus Ideas

55:21 Managerialism And COVID

56:53 Public Service Renewal

01:02:55 Generational Conservative Shift

01:05:00 Tropos And Regime Roots

01:06:58 Closing Reflections

Professor Barry Cooper is an Albertan. This fact transcends location. It speaks to a prairie self-understanding, a prairie myth, that stands apart and distinct from the Laurentian myth. For example, Cooper says bilingual Canada is a "huge myth outside Laurentian Canada."

Professor Cooper argues that George Grant did not understand the prairie mindset. He was a Laurentian, and as such, Grant was clueless about Alberta. He reflects the Garrison mindset of the Laurentians: Alberta is a place you go to get stuff.

Cooper thinks Alberta independence is an inevitability. He cannot see any way to meld the two myths (mythoi) together. They are chalk and cheese.

We touch on education, technology, and political ideologies. Professor Cooper promotes a non-ideological stance. Perhaps in the future we can tackle whether this is even possible. It seems to assume a fact-value distinction, value relativism, which assumes what it seeks to avoid. But again, we will have to pursue this another day.

Professor Cooper points us to prairie history written by historians who actually understand the west. Stop reading only history written by Laurentians who do not understand their subject.

Barry Cooper's influence on Canadian political thought has been huge. Don't miss this episode!

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks again!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Barry Cooper, a fourth-generation Albertan and senior fellow at the Frontier Centre, about how technology shapes consciousness (“technology is its use”), the impact of screens and AI, and why we often misunderstand technology as something we control. Cooper contrasts a Laurentian “garrison mentality” with a Western pioneer mindset, arguing that central Canada misunderstands Western Canada—a gap he says even George Grant exemplified despite Cooper’s friendly acquaintance with him. They discuss myth as a lived self-understanding, Canada’s east–west versus north–south alignments, COVID-era authoritarian responses, and Cooper’s view that Canada is not truly bilingual outside parts of Ontario and Quebec. Cooper concludes Alberta independence is “not if, but when,” unless central Canada addresses core policy grievances like pipelines and transfer payments.

00:00 Tech Shapes Us

00:34 Alberta Independence Myths

01:13 Meet Barry Cooper

05:38 George Grant And The West

08:04 Prairie Experience Vs Laurentian Vision

13:42 How Cooper Was Educated

17:15 From Farmers To Thinkers

18:40 Teaching Ideology And Wokeness

22:56 Technology Is Its Use

27:42 Myth And The West As Resource

28:57 Myth and Selfhood

31:22 Prairie Pioneer Mindset

32:56 Pipelines and Leverage

37:14 Garrison COVID Politics

40:41 Reading the West

41:56 Bilingualism Myth

47:13 Alberta Future and Independence

49:07 Beyond Left Right Labels

51:46 Local Historians and Wrap Up

Ron Dart seems to embody generosity. It's hard to find a hard edge in him. Even when he states an opinion strongly, he always works to understand your side of the issue. 

Ron and I approach things from different angles, but we both try to embody the same method. Of course, his is far more honed and nuanced, educated and articulate. But I think our conversations reflect a genuine desire to understand -- attentive listening as Professor Dart calls it.

This episode gets into questions we all need to ask about Canada, what holds us together, and what is our understanding of first principles.

Please tell me what you think of it!

Thanks so much for listening.

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Professor Ron Dart about why philosophy is needed today and how Canada sought a post–World War II cultural identity through the Massey Commission (1948–1951), commissioned by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. They discuss the report’s emphasis on national “intangibles,” unity in the realm of ideas, and George Grant’s controversial philosophy submission, requested by his uncle Vincent Massey, which argued philosophy is not a technique but a wisdom-seeking discipline that must avoid becoming purely negative skepticism and must relate scientific and technical knowledge to moral and spiritual questions. Dart recounts Grant’s clashes with U of T’s Fulbert Anderson, Grant’s resignation from York University over curricular control, and how this led to Grant’s role in founding McMaster’s interdisciplinary Religious Studies program. They also explore contemplative vs. active life, faith as a human issue, limits of rationalism, and Sophocles’ Antigone as a warning about rigid polarization.

00:00 Why Philosophy Now

00:30 Meet Ron Dart

01:22 Massey Report Origins

03:27 Canada Identity After War

06:26 Key Massey Quotes

08:08 Visionary or Postmortem

12:12 Grant vs York University

18:28 Conscience and Aftermath

22:49 Baptists and Classics at Mac

25:19 Grant on Faith and Technique

28:03 Vita Activa vs Contemplation 3

5:40 Not Knowing and Faith

40:43 Polanyi and Tacit Knowledge

42:06 Bayes and Uncertainty

43:08 Defeasible Warrant

43:36 Nietzsche Apollo Dionysus

46:12 Limits of Rationalism

48:52 Grant and Bacon Nuance

50:25 Philosophy Not Cumulative

53:12 Against Chronological Snobbery

55:40 Catholicity of Traditions

01:00:02 Antigone and Culture Wars

01:03:28 Frozen Reason Tragedy

01:07:32 Choosing Sides Carefully

01:13:00 Aeschylus and the Enemy

01:14:52 Tightrope of Tensions

01:17:40 Concluding Reflections

Mia Hughes has no qualms about saying the Emperor has no clothes. She says what the rest of us cannot say, because we must stay within the boundaries of what our licences require.

Transgender medicine strikes at the core of what medicine is; at what it means to care for patients.

Should doctors do whatever patients want, or should doctors do whatever saves life and limb?

There could not be a greater debate. 

Should technology determine what we can and should do or should technology submit to something else?

Powerful, powerful discussion. 

Please take a moment to absorb it. Reflect. Tell me what you think.

Thank you so much for listening!

Shawn

https://genspect.org/international/genspect-canada/

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/shawn-whatley-doctors-have-gone-silent-on-gender-dysphoria-thats-not-good-for-patients

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Mia Hughes, director of Genspect Canada, about what she calls the ideology-driven culture of gender medicine and her reporting on leaked internal WPATH communications (“WPATH files”). Hughes describes WPATH’s evolution from the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association into an activist-influenced organization, arguing its guiding principle became “de-psychopathologization,” prioritizing patient autonomy and access to hormones and surgeries over evidence and clinical safeguards. They debate medical ethics, consumerist medicine, differential diagnosis, and how harm should be defined, including comparisons to anorexia and apotemnophilia. Hughes presents her framework of transgender identification as an “extreme overvalued belief,” criticizes self-report outcomes as proof of benefit, and discusses detransition experiences. The episode ends with her account of confronting evidence-based medicine pioneer Gordon Guyatt over McMaster’s statement calling pediatric gender interventions “medically necessary.”

00:00 What Guides Gender Medicine

00:34 Meet Mia Hughes

05:52 Courage and Whistleblowing

07:14 Inside the WPATH Files

12:57 How WPATH Changed

15:19 Activism Takes Over

19:41 Devils Advocate Ethics

23:10 Overvalued Idea Theory

29:23 Contagion and Guardrails

31:52 Measuring Success and Harm

36:29 Evidence Limits and Harm Redefined

39:32 Paraphilias and Body Fixation

40:22 Patient Blackmail Ethics

41:08 Consumer Medicine Debate

43:00 Gender Care Lifesaving Claim

46:44 Liberalism Versus Medical Limits

49:57 Detransition And Overvalued Belief

54:40 Demanding Differential Diagnosis

56:46 Repathologizing And Root Causes

01:03:52 Gordon Guyatt Controversy

01:11:50 What We Missed And Wrap