I Already Googled It

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).

In response to this:

Jeff McBride boldly suggests in the 21^st’s edition that “[r]ights shouldn’t apply before oath sworn”, asking “[a]re these people Canadians before they have sworn the oath?”

Perhaps before making an assertion about rights that people do and do not have, or when they should and should not “apply”, one should actually read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter contains two broad categories of rights and freedoms: Those which pertain to citizens only, and those which pertain to all people.

For example, section 2a) of the Charter specifies: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms […] freedom of conscience and religion”.  Canadian or not, everyone has these fundamental freedoms.

We don’t have freedom of expression, thought, religion, conscience, et cetera because government or a charter gives us those rights.  We have those rights unless government takes them away.  You don’t have to swear an oath and become a Canadian citizen to receive basic human dignity, that’s something that everyone – because of their very nature as human beings – should enjoy.

Note section 1 of the Charter: “The [Charter] guarantees rights and freedoms set out in subject”.  It doesn’t grant anyone anything.  It recognizes pre-existing rights and guarantees that they will not be taken away.