I Already Googled It

Walking from the office to the parkade, I walked through Centennial Square and was disgusted by the communists out in force.

Got home and wrote/sent this:

Today – May 1^st – is “International Workers Day”, and consequently the communists were decorating Centennial Square with their signs and slogans.

I must question why people flirt – even in such small numbers – with such a dangerous ideology.  In the past century, in its various incarnations – China, the U.S.S.R., and Cambodia most notably – it has claimed over one hundred million lives.

There is nothing good about Communism.  It is an ideology to which only those who covet power and unearned wealth flock.

Apologists claim that the implementation was flawed, that it would be paradise were only the correct people in charge.  This is not mere rhetoric, this is the prospect of millions more sacrificed to the insatiable flame of “the common good”.

We treasure – if not other property – our self-ownership.  The right to decide for ourselves what happens to our body and in our lives.  Communism and communists seek to take that away.  They seek to bind themselves and their fellow man in perpetuity to the will of the state.

Under our (mostly) capitalist system, you find vast supermarkets overflowing with the essentials of life.  Millions of Chinese, Russians, and Cambodians starved in squalor desperate for such a miracle.

The minimum wage here in B.C. recently jumped from the lowest in Canada to the highest ($10.25).

I sent a letter to the editor to honour the occasion:

Today the minimum wage in B.C. rose to $10.25.

Despite what many people may instinctually believe, this is not a good thing.  In fact, a higher minimum wage will only cause one of two things: Higher unemployment, or higher prices.

When you work, you do so to add value to your employer.  The way that you do this is by producing more than you cost.  If someone is paid $10.25/hr, they must increase the revenue of their employer by at least $10.25/hr, otherwise they simply will not be employed – the employer would lose money by keeping them on.

If we understand employment in this way, it becomes apparent that raising the minimum wage does one of two things: It either forces those who are particularly unproductive out (i.e. raises unemployment), or it forces employers to make it easier to add value (i.e. raises prices).

Counter-intuitively, if we want to improve the lot of those un- and underemployed, we must abolish the minimum wage.  This will allow unskilled workers – those who cannot add $10.25 of value per hour – to be employed, giving them both an income and experience – allowing them to become skilled and more productive rather than wallowing in unemployability.

The highest minimum wage in Canada – B.C.’s newest distinction – is nothing to be proud of.

In response to this:

It is nonsensical to oppose “legislatures […] buy[ing] votes with other provinces’ money”, and yet advocate “tax recognition for the costs of raising children”.  They are the same thing.

In one instance, costs are transferred from the people of one province to the people of another.  In another, costs are transferred from those with children to those without.

Having children is a choice.  Many people opt out, many people opt in.  Since the costs of running the government do not go down when tax deductions are given, those costs must then be borne by others.  Advocating for deductions for those with children is advocating for those without children to pay more.

Moreover, children are a driver of government costs.  Public schooling – in particular – is entirely child-driven.  These costs are borne by everyone, and yet benefit only those with children.  So rather than taxing those with children more – to reflect their increased advantage – we should give them tax breaks, expecting others to pay more for less?

If we value equality, the government should remain neutral and allow everyone to live equally – without special advantages or disadvantages.  A wealth transfer from those without children to those with – whether in the form of spending or tax breaks – is a special advantage.

Children are expensive, it’s a fact of life and a consequence of the decision to have children, not something the government should be trying to ease with other peoples’ money.

In response to this:

Every controversial event is followed by cries of “there ought to be a law!”  I imagine the people crying out do not consider the implications thereof:

If someone went independently to a car dealership, discovered they were – for example – selling cars capable of a top speed of over 150km/h, and proceeded to take money (i.e. levy a fine) or kidnap the owner and/or employees (i.e. jail them), we’d be aghast and expect the police to find and arrest the perpetrator.

Unless, of course, the people committing this act weren’t acting independently, were wearing uniforms, and were there in accordance with “the law” – i.e. edicts written on pieces of paper – then we’d feel that the perpetrators deserve to be praised and thanked for their “service”.

This dissonance alone should be sufficient to make reactionaries question their premises.  If something is abhorrent for one person acting independently, why is it any less so for a group of people acting on orders?  Is being mugged less evil and less undesirable if you’re mugged by five people rather than one?

This also raises the question: Is violence an acceptable solution?  Should any person – or any number of people – be authorized to use violence simply because some influential person or people don’t like the victim’s otherwise benign behaviour?

We’re appalled by dictators who punish people for their speech and religious beliefs, but do we really have the right to assume the moral high ground?

In response to this (and some pent up angst about collectivism in general):

The question “[w]hat do we want our city to look like?” demonstrates a common fallacy and blight upon politics: That “the people” collectively own the sum of wealth available, and that “owners” merely hold some portion at the leisure of “the people”.

Regardless of any vote, “the people” do not legitimately own the City of Victoria or any of its municipalities.  They may each individually own some part of it, but there is no “the people” with its own independent volition or claims to ownership.

This is the fundamental fallacy of the politics of collectivism.  That “society” or “the people” exist as entities with their own wants, needs, and desires.  These are rhetorical tricks to disguise problems of consent.  People do not unanimously concur in anything, so to glaze over the fact that they’re advocating mob rule, collectivists use “we” or “society” or “the people” to create a veneer of unanimity that does not exist.

We see this in “[s]urely we want […] a[n] […] art gallery, music conservatory and historical sites”.  I know of many people – myself included – who do not want these things, and thusly do not want to pay for them.

The justification for taxation is that it funds things held in common, for the use and benefit of all.  I do not benefit from art galleries, nor do I use them, so subsidizing them with a tax break is illegitimate.  They must survive on individual wants, expressed through the free market on an even playing field.

In response to this:

People crying for “proportional representation” ought to consider their premises.

Why is 51% the magic number?  Why is gaining control of the country with the vote of 51 out of every 100 people somehow more legitimate than gaining control with 40 out of every 100 people?

If you are a member of a group of 100, and you disagree with 40 of them, would 11 people agreeing with those 40 somehow make the 40 more correct or you less correct?  Would “there are more of us” be a convincing/compelling argument?  77.1% of people in Canada are Christians, does this mean that there is a God and that atheists are incorrect?

Argumentum ad populum is not a convincing or compelling argument.  Advocating for the total control of 51% – democracy – is no more or less noble than advocating for the total control of 1 – autocracy.  You are still advocating a system of control and coercion.  What difference is it to the oppressed if they are oppressed by 51% or 1?  Does the number of people deciding upon the oppression lessen its impact or increase its justification?

Moreover, one should consider the purpose of our parliamentary structure before advocating changes to it.  Our voting system is not designed to select a party to rule the entire country – the Constitution limits the power of the federal government – it’s to select representatives to take our local concerns to Parliament.  We should work to lessen the power of political parties, not exalt them.

In response to this:

The reason that unions exist is to collectively bargain on behalf of their members, but this only works when both parties have equal and opposite incentives.  Management in the private sector has an incentive to minimize costs, whereas workers have an incentive to maximize wages and benefits.  Their relationship is adversarial, and therefore they must strike a balance.

Management in the public sector has an incentive to achieve political gains, accomplished by pleasing the electorate.  This same electorate placidly pays exorbitant rates of tax, has little to no regard for fiscal rectitude, and may be swayed by union advertising dollars.

A public sector union elects their own boss, who pays them with other peoples’ money, and has no incentive to turn a profit or even break even.

As the teachers debacle has shown us, public sector unions have nothing to do with raising or maintaining high levels of payment.  The government can rewrite contracts willy-nilly to pay however much they want, provided the political incentives are in place.

Increasing government revenue to save money is an oxymoron.  Ronald Reagan was right; government doesn’t tax to get the money it needs, but rather needs the money it gets.

I have nothing against public sector workers, but I have everything against programs funded by money I am compelled to pay.

The rhetoric of politicians and public sector union leaders boils down to one word:

More.

Public sector unions are a pet peeve of mine — they’re a massive wealth transfer – so if the letter seems vitriolic, that’s why.

In response to this:

Rob Maxwell states that as someone who “usually walks, cycles, or takes transit” he “resent[s] having to subsidize the ‘free’ parking for those who choose to drive”.

Does he not realize that the transit he so proudly takes does not turn a profit?  That the revenue from fares and tickets does not cover B.C. Transit’s operating costs?

Where does he think the difference between revenue and costs comes from?

The taxpayer, of course, some of whom drive and never use transit – just as he never uses “free” parking.

This is a problem with any “free” or subsidized services from the government.  People resent those receiving handouts which they aren’t, but readily take and defend the handouts that they do benefit from.

TANSTAAFL.  Let’s pass the costs through to the point of use.

It’ll certainly make me feel better about the $156 I pay to park downtown each month.

In response to this:

It seems that experts in certain fields – such as the Canadian Medical Association – cannot resist the temptation to attempt to exert power beyond their field.

Medical experts are not political experts.  Accordingly they not experts in the causes, effects, and moral justification (or lack thereof) for public policies.  They should therefore respectfully abstain from mixing their field with fields in which they are not experts.

Knowledge of the salt content in food in Canada is certainly useful, and we should be grateful that the “international team” gathered and published this information, but we should reject their calls for government intervention.

If I choose to chronically consume high salt foods, then the consequences will befall me, and no one else.  Why is it any of the government’s business if a place of business wants to sell me high salt foods which I want to buy?  Why should the government tell me that I can’t indulge in this habit?

Because it’s bad for me?  Isn’t that my choice to make?

If you own something, you can choose to destroy or alter it.  You may renovate your own house, or you may tear it down.

If self-destructive habits – such as high salt foods – are regulated to prevent us from destroying our bodies, what does that say about our ownership of our own bodies?

In response to this:

“[I]nnocent until proven guilty” is one of the most comforting aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  You can’t lose your freedom or your livelihood until your accuser can prove that you’re guilty.

Or can you?

If we scrutinize the story of the Monkey Tree Daycare, we find that Douglas Ralph Page is merely accused.  Charges have been sworn, but the man has not been found guilty.  The acts “allegedly” took place, we don’t know that they actually did.

Yet under a government which requires licenses and permits for every conceivable action – rather than leaving us to our own liberty – this is irrelevant.  Celia Armstrong’s daycare can be shut down and her livelihood stolen based on “conditions” that the government imposes on her use of her own home.

Her daycare was fit enough that parents decided to send their children there, and she was willing to exchange her time for their money.  How is this the business of the government?  If parents had a complaint, why not simply inform the other parents and let them make the best decision for their children?

Trading with one another is the means by which we survive.  If the government can require that we obtain a license or a permit, and revoke this license or permit willy-nilly, how “free” is our “free country”?  Should we so casually accept this intrusion, or should we see it for what it is: Government asserting partial ownership of our possessions by fiat?