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.

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:

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:

When comparing ourselves to “progressive European nations”, it would be wise to remember that the latter are bankrupt.  There’s a sovereign debt crisis wracking Europe, and it’s precisely because they’re “progressive”.

Whenever you implore the government to pay for something you can’t — health care, education, et cetera — what you’re asking is that you be allowed to become a burden on everyone else.  No matter how well you mask your point with rhetoric, you’re asking to be allowed to leech wealth you did not create and which you do not own.

What’s the endgame?  Do you expect those being sucked dry to pay forever?  Do you expect their resources to last infinitely?

Education isn’t a “right”.  This becomes clearer as time goes on, teachers’ unions strike, and tuitions — and thus student debt — rise.

Life hasn’t gotten more complicated since those who needed it could work themselves through college/university, the government’s just become more involved with student loans and other funding.  You don’t need “higher education” for most jobs, but because the government’s making post secondary “accessible” it’s become expected.

For most jobs 12 years of education — elementary and secondary — is enough of a waste, both of time and resources.  Paying for everyone’s “higher education” would simply compound the problem.

We should come to our senses and reverse the trend of government-funded/-subsidized education, rather than marching onward and mortgaging our children for educations they don’t need.

In response to this:

Angel Sampson — an “early-childhood educator” – posits that “[d]aycare services [...] should be free“.  But I imagine that were the government to tell him that he must work for no pay — i.e. for “free“ – that he would feel wronged.

So what does “free” mean, if the people providing the “free” services are still paid?

It means that the government should pay for these services.  How does the government pay for them?  Taxation.  Which means that they’re not “free“; everyone is expected to pay for them, just not at the point of use.

But some people choose not to have children.  Why should they be expected to subsidize the lifestyle of those that choose differently?  Why should they be expected to pay for a program from which they derive no benefit?  Why should the government establish two classes of citizens: Those who have children (and receive handouts), and those who don’t (and are forced to provide the handouts)?  Why should parents enjoy services at the expense of those who do not choose to become parents? 

If parents want to have a career and children that’s their right.  But if they can’t afford it they should exercise foresight, not expect a taxpayer-funded handout.

“TANSTAAFL [There ain't no such thing as a free lunch]”
–Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, 1966

Appended to the letter:

Note: In the letter (specifically the first paragraph), the masculine pronoun has been used as in English it may be used in lieu of a gender neutral pronoun.

Recently there’s been a deluge of letters in the local newspaper about the upcoming B.C. teachers’ strike.

People talking about the school system and the teachers’ strike seem to disclaim everything with their support for or appreciation of the teachers, and/or their unwavering support for the public school system.

Does anyone give thought to these platitudes anymore?  We say that we “support the troops” and “appreciate the teachers”, but why?

The wholesome goodness and needfulness of the public school system has been taken as axiomatic in mainstream political discourse, and therefore its opponents are ruthlessly smeared.  Consequently people disclaim everything to avoid being mistaken for someone “evil”.

But what if the public school system isn’t needful or good?  What if it doesn’t provide a good education?  What if it wastes countless hours on subjects unrelated to a student’s interests and future career?  What if it wastes our money teaching future computer programmers about ancient Sumerian civilization?  What if it wastes our money teaching future historians about the water cycle?

What if it judged success or failure not on merits, but on arbitrary, irrelevant, timed tests?

What if it can’t be fixed, even if the right people are in charge?

What if it’s just a wealth transfer from those who don’t have children to those who do?

What if it’s more “daycare” than “education”?

What if it fails those who don’t learn like everyone else?

What if it encourages orthodoxy and sameness rather than diversity and uniqueness?

What if we don’t even raise our own children anymore?

What if all these are true?

In response to this:

I agree with Alan Hedley that we should tone down military spending — we don’t need it.  It seems to me we could probably get a better deal buying “defense services” from our southern neighbour (they certainly have surplus “defense services“).

What I don’t agree with is his dichotomy: Submarines or housing.

While the consequentialist argument for government housing may be appealing, arguments to consequences are a logical fallacy — an appeal to emotion.  We must therefore consider the deontological argument for government housing.

Houses — and the resources required therefore — do not simply materialize in response to royal assent.  From where, then, is government to get the housing it would seek to provide?

Government does not produce wealth.  The government exists as a parasite — extracting the resources it needs to survive from its host: The taxpayer.

This — therefore — is where the resources for housing come from.  If we all feel this is a great use of our money, so be it.  But what if we don’t?  What if someone doesn’t want to pay for government housing?  Will the government honour their choice, or will they send armed men to break down their door and haul them away — kidnap them?

Is this civilized?  Would we demand so many things from the government if the reality of their procurement – coercion — was apparent?  We regard violence and aggression as evil, how is outsourcing it to the government any less so?

This is one of those letters where I wish the Times Colonist didn’t limit submissions to 250 words (it’s 245)…I had so much more to say than that…

…but clearly being a private company they can limit submissions however they want (shameless/obvious libertarian plug).

Invariably in democratic politics where representatives are chosen by a plurality, people will become concerned with “proportional representation” and the “popular vote”.

All of this presupposes the legitimacy of a democratic system, which is unfortunate.

At the root of democracy is the unfortunate logical fallacy that because more people think something should be so than not, that thing should be so.  This is an argumentum ad populum.  At the core of this thinking is an argumentum ad baculum—the majority can overpower the minority, so they rule.

The structure of federal systems such as that of Canada and the United States is—surprisingly to some people—not to be democratic, but rather to be anti-democratic.  If the goal was to be democratic the Constitution of Canada—and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—would not exist.  The presence of these and an unelected Supreme Court are extremely strong bulwarks against majority rule.  If the people who designed our federal system wanted the country to be democratic, they would not have appointed branches with a check on the elected branch.

But these are merely the facts—i.e. this is merely that something is so, not why it is so.  Why is this a good idea?

Consider the basic tenet of democracy: Majority rule.  This raises an important question: Which majority?  The majority of people in a house, on a street, in a municipality, in a city, in a province, in a country, or in the world?  And why is one of these majorities somehow more or less valid than another.

Consider marijuana prohibition.  Even if this has the majority support of people in a city, why should any particular household not be able possess or consume marijuana?  They’re not imposing or harming anyone else, so why can or should the majority be able to constrain them?

This is—of course—where the argumentum ad baculum comes in.  Majority rule is morally unqualified; it is merely backed by more guns than its opposition, and therefore “might makes right”.

There are scenarios where this ridiculousness of the majority’s rule becomes even more apparent.  What if everyone—unanimously—in a particular city wants to decriminalize marijuana, but the more numerous people in the adjacent city don’t, and the more numerous people in the adjacent city have used majority rule through the province- or country-level government to ban marijuana?

This is the problem that the concept of federalism attempts to solve.  First, there is a Constitution which limits what government can do.  Then there is an unelected—and therefore not subject to political whims—Supreme Court which has the power to hold the government accountable to the Constitution.  Then the power is split between two levels of government—nation and regional (i.e. federal and provincial)—and then those two levels of government are made up of people elected by plurality from certain regions.

This brings us to another point: The evils of political parties.

You see, the fact that representatives—MLAs and MPs—are elected on a per region basis is significant.  Those people are supposed to represent the issues that affect that region.  The Constitution is supposed to restrain centralized power from trampling on regional concerns.  This is why the citizens of B.C. can choose a monopoly on car insurance—ICBC—while people in Ontario may not.  This is not the affair of the federal government, so a one size fits all solution, nation-wide, is out of the question.

Under a system where the “popular vote” becomes significant, representation of these regional concerns is gone.  Representatives are chosen from some pool of representatives, and it becomes an issue not of voting for the person you want to represent you, but rather the party.

The problem with parties is that they have monolithic, nation-wide agendas, which don’t vary from region-to-region.

The other issue here is that of having your voice heard.  As power is centralized it becomes harder for individuals to affect it.  If you elect an independent—unaffiliated with any party—representative, you can simply write them a letter, have a meeting with them, go to a “town hall”, et cetera.  It’s very easy to have your concerns heard by this person, since they represent your area, and there aren’t many people in your area.

But what about affecting the whole Conservative Party?  That’s 165 Members of Parliament as of this writing.  That’s much more difficult.  And so long as—for the most part—the party is whipped and votes according to the party line, representation will be difficult.

Of course, there are Members of Parliament who do vote against the party line, such as Scott Simms (Liberal Party) on “C-304 An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)” but this is uncommon and party members can face severe consequences—such as expulsion from the party—for failing to vote according to the party line.

George Washington was right to warn against political parties, and Canadians—just as Americans—have fallen victim to them.

The issue is not—as the “popular vote” supporters believe, or would have you believe—the first past the post voting system, but rather the formation and entrenchment of political parties.  Switching to a system of “popular vote” is only going to make this problem worse, as political parties become increasingly important.

The focus should always be bringing power closer to the people, where they can change it, where they can have an impact on it, and where its effects can be seen and felt by those people forming those policies.  If MPs from Ontario vote on a policy that’s devastating to a community in British Columbia, they won’t necessarily see or hear about the consequences thereof, they won’t feel the devastation—they’re uninvested, unconcerned, and unaccountable.

This is why if you want a truly accountable, truly responsive government, you must support federalism and oppose the formation and entrenchment of political parties.

The “popular vote” is just mob rule.  It is the very thing that federalism is supposed to hedge against, not succumb to.

Ultimately, however, democracy is a morally bankrupt system.  It is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.  It is the acquiescence of concrete moral principles to the shifting whimsy of the majority.  It is an admission that moral right and wrong are not fixed and unchanging, but are rather shades of grey that shift with the times and the “popular vote”.

If you truly believe democracy, you must believe the following:

“Since the government of Nazi Germany was originally democratically elected, the Holocaust was morally right.”

“Since the government of the United States is democratically elected, racism was morally right until 1964.”

If you disagree with either of these statements, then you believe in some level of anti-democracy, which means that you see some of the failings of democracy, which means that you’re halfway there.

Democracy holds that two other people have a higher claim to your life than you do, by virtue of their superior numbers.  If you believe that you own your own life, if you believe that you have certain rights and freedoms that no one can take away, you don’t believe in democracy, nor do you want it.