Some common sense from a politician (for a change)

From the Wall Street Journal. If he represents the "new wave" of Republicans, along with Governor's Palin and Bobby Jindal (among others), then maybe the Republican Party has the nucleus of a new team. Give them until 2012 to clean house internally and build a new platform on "Classical Liberal" principles like freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law (or in the American idiom; "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness") and they will have a winning combination. The chaos and economic uncertainty of the next four years won't hurt their chances either:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Don't Bail Out My State
South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.
By MARK SANFORD

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

But I suspect I'm not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the "bail-outor"?

Washington is short on cash these days and will borrow every dime of the $150 billion to $300 billion for the "stimulus" bill now being worked on. Federal appetites may know no bounds. But the federal government's ability to borrow is not limitless. Already, our nation's unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion -- about $450,000 per household. There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.

Do you now have to be a financial "bad boy" to win?

Community bankers tell me that they are now at a competitive disadvantage for being careful about who to lend to, because others that were less disciplined will get a federal bailout. This is also true for states. Those that have been fiscally responsible will pay for or lose out to the big spenders. California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won't?

Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That's unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.

Isn't government intervention supposed to be the last resort and come only when it can make a difference?

In 2008 bailouts became the first resort. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate "stimulus" checks of last February) to "improve" the economy. I don't see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

Based on what I saw in Washington, the bailout train is being loaded up. Taxpayers will have to speak up now to change its freight, tab or departure.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pronounce judgement on the Obama Administration

Should we really prolong the death struggle for those countries, whose ruling intellectual caste is dependent on the resources that the capitalist west provides for its socialist experiments?
Friedrich A. Hayek

That which generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade -- and currency control, devaluing, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is the philosophy of war.
Ludwig von Mises

We will live in interesting times

Remembrance day

The ancient Greek statesman Pericles gave an oration for the Athenian war dead ("The Funeral Oration"), which is speaks to us today as much as it did to the Athenians in the winter of 441 BC. When he discusses the ideal of citizenship, he speaks across the centuries to the same impulses which drove our citizen soldiers throughout Canada's history:

What I would prefer is you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect what made her great were men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard. If they ever failed in an enterprise, they made up their minds that at any rate the city would not find their courage lacking to her, and they gave to her the best contribution that they could. They gave her their lives, to her and to all of us, and for their own selves they won praises that never grow old, the most splendid of sepulchers- not the sepulcher where their body is laid but where their glory remains eternal in men’s minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action.


Lest we forget

Still Not The Prime Minister

Yes, that means you Jack

"In the first case, it's going to be a speech from the throne that will be a confidence motion, and we've set out today the five fundamentals that we must see ... for us to even consider supporting it."

What part of fourth place don't you understand?

Un-equalization...

"This reliance on handouts makes governments and voters too dependent on other people's money and less willing to make innovative policy decisions to spark job creation."

Indeed...

Pope Signs Death sentence

Apparently the meaning of the word donation is more important than saving a persons life.

"buying and selling of organs ... would go against the meaning of donation"

In Canada according to this article 46% of patients waiting for a Kidney died in the average 2.4 years they were followed for the study. This is in spite of the fact that a person can live with just one kidney.

The article is chock full of tidbits like this...

"A relatively small proportion of patients received a transplant: 10.6 per cent for those receiving a kidney from a deceased donor and 5.8 per cent for live donors."

I wonder, how many people would voluntarily exchange a kidney for a suitable cash payment...

Meh, it doesn't really matter, because once again, the church proves it is all about suffering, it's more interested in some ethereal piety and altruistic nonsense than it is in you, your life, the ones you love and your/their continued existence.

My hat is off to the propagandists of the church though... That they continue to be able to convince people that it is better to die than to pay for a service is amazing. The two Joe's (Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin) must be prostrating themselves in the grave at the thought of it.

An Army of Brownshirts?

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/

Civilian National Security Force
BY Herschel Smith

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

Truth in Advertising

Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld

Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.

Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.

We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.

Here is how another correspondent puts it:

A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."

Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.

A radical approach to dealing with the financial crisis

WRT the economy, I think the various notions being floated or practiced now are dangerous nonsense. Nationalizing the banks or debt will further distort the economy and lead to inflation. Given the sordid history of State intervention in the housing market which caused this mess in the first place, I would be very reluctant to accept that further direct intervention in the economy can "help". Someone needs to take the lead with a more radical approach that restores liquidity and confidence without breaking the bank. For a Canadian solution I propose:

a. Eliminating business income tax entirely. Business does not pay tax anyway, but simply passes on the costs to consumers. Dropping the tax will free up massive amounts of resources to retool, pay off debt or whatever else the owners see fit, and give the overall economy a huge boost. The political criticism from the "Progressives" and regional interests can be deflected by pointing out that every business and every region will benefit without prejudice or special favor, and the amount of funds released into the productive economy will create many new jobs. The $50 billion in business tax cuts that Jack Layton wanted to take back is the resources to create 1,000,000 new, full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables.

b. Institute a single tax (AKA Flat tax). Eliminating all loopholes, exemptions etc. will make revenue collection much easier, and also deflect criticism from the "Progressives". As a bonus, a single tax can free up about $3 billion after tax dollars a year in compliance costs to taxpayers and business; more funds that can flow to the productive economy pot.

c. Eliminate corporate subsidies as a partial payment for "a". Corporate subsidies cost an estimated $19 billion per year to the taxpayer, probably a lot more if regional funds, special initiatives to "selected" industries, agriculture, arts and culture etc. are included. Since the business world receives a huge boost from eliminating business tax, dropping subsidies is a fair trade off, and since the elimination of business income tax will assist all business, calls for corporate subsidies to "selected" industries and regions can be muted.

Can such a plan be implemented? Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated a great deal of skill in handling a fractious parliament in the past. The plan can appeal to both the business wing of the Liberal party (by helping business nation wide) and the "Progressives" of all stripes by providing resources to create new jobs across all sectors of the economy and all regions. Careful explanation and stickhandling through parliament will be needed to get this passed, and I am not sure that even a global financial crisis engulfing the Canadian economy like a tsunami will cause politicians to drop petty partisan differences for the greater good.

Still, forward this plan to every person and media outlet you can; discussion can only increase the number of options that can be considered.

"I am a free Canadian" -- election day blogburst

"I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."

h/t: five feet of fury
Small Dead Animals

Men, not Law

I was visiting a Conservative Party candidate at her open house when it was crashed by several people "protesting" the deportation of American servicemen who have deserted and fled to Canada.

Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.

These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.

The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?

And What Exactly Is That?

Stephane Dion said...

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?

The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...

Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).

Babies, Bathwater and Bail-outs

The current market blowout is being heralded by government and the media as a failure, no, as a direct result of capitalism. Blame for it is being laid at the feet of corporations and banks and business’. This is a lie.

This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.

Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.

The demand from the US government to that nations banks that a percentage of mortgages be given to people who would otherwise not qualify would never have happened either.

Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.

1. That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
2. That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.

Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.

Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.

Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.

NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.

With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.

Why fund the Arts?

Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)

Two points in particular struck me:

1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.

2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.

If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?

The Progressive "Surge"

Progressives of all stripes are discovering that insurgencies can be waged with ideas as well as guns and IED's. Progressives have taken effective control of the MSM, educational institutions, government bureaucracies and even a large portion of the market, but those nasty Classical Liberals (who often go by names like the Conservatives or Republicans, depending on where you live) still seem to be ahead of the game.

In Canada, Classical Liberals have become the governing party (and may possibly win a majority government mandate on Oct 14, 2008). Classical Liberals are also in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two of the wealthiest and fastest growing provinces in Canada, and seem to be making inroads elsewhere.

In the United States, Senator Barack Obama is either tied or only marginally ahead of his Republican rival, despite the adulation of the press and a finance machine that can raise and spend cash at an astronomical rate, far beyond any rivals. Indeed, Senator Obama only defeated Senator Clinton by a small margin, despite having much the same advantage over her.

The reaction of the Progressives is quite illuminating. Consider how open the bias of the MSM has become against any manifestation of Classical Liberalism, its proponents or works. War reporting is astonishingly one sided. Victories are never reported, either spectacular events like the retaking of Anabar province in Iraq, or the small, incrimental gains that the Canadians make every day in Afghanistan. Political reporting is similarly hypocritical; think of the cone of silence which surrounds scandals like John Edward's illicit affair (while his wife is dying of cancer, to boot), the relationships between Democratic party congressmen and senators and "Freddie and Fannie", the two GSE's implicate in the current financial crisis, Elizabeth May's participation in a pro Hezbollah, anti Isreal rally or the almost open collusion between the Canadian Green and Liberal parties; then look at how political figures on the Classical Liberal side of the political spectrum are treated. Govenor Sarah Palin is constantly smeared or belittled in the MSM; a reader is much more likely to find her characterized as a "porn star" rather than the only candidate among the Presidential contenders to have executive experience (and in a large, wealthy and demanding state at that). Prime Minister Stephan Harper is compared to political figures like Hitler or George W Bush (although perhaps the Bush comparison can be seen as a compliment by the Classical Liberal side) and all manner of "Gotcha" journalistic tricks are brought into play rather than examining issues (although to be fair, the Conservative Party of Canada does this as well against their opponents).

Progressives see the ground being cut out from under their feet, and are mounting a surge from their commanding heights to block or limit the Classical Liberals from gaining or retaining power. All manner of dirty tricks are in play: In Canada, "Human Rights Comissions" target Bloggers and journalists who support Classical Liberal principles. In the United States, members of the Obama campaign threaten to prosecute people or organizations who present any contrary view of fact about Senator Obama, possibly fearing a "Swiftboating" of the Senator through revelations about his unsavoury mentors, his connections with the financiers involved in the financial crisis or even just the totally ineffectual nature of his "community organizing". Selective and manipulative press coverage is a given. Discussions in institutions of higher learning or even elementary and high schools are blatent indoctrination (and in many Universities, Orwellian "Speech codes" are employed to silence students and facilty).

It will be difficult to fight against the surge; the Progressives have the power and resources of the State behind them. They still control many of the largest and most important channels of communication, and the mechanisms of the Law are available to be used selectively in favour of the Progressive cause. Still the fight is of critical importance to each and every one of us. Only by standing for our rights can we maintain them. Blogging is perhaps the most notable weapon we have, but even if we are reduced to passing messages by Samisdat we should still make the attempt.

Our ultimate advantage lies in the fact that Progressiveism is a parisitical concept; if they are denied access to State power, they begin to wither on the vine. As usual, Ayn Rand has provided the template; Ellsworth Toohey may have been a "power" with his newspaper column, but once the newspaper chain folded, Toohey's power was gone; he did not create, but was only a parisite upon the creators.

In a Mental Gulag

The thing Jack Layton has forgotten as he continues to mumble his socialist mantra is that in spite of their importance, in spite of their overwhelming numerical superiority it is not the middle class or ‘workers’ who create wealth and prosperity. That is the bailiwick of the “evil corporations”. It is a result of the ideas that spring from the boardroom table, not the kitchen table.

One single CEO creates more wealth and more jobs through proper management of his corporation than a thousand socially pampered working stiffs.

The other side of Layton’s disastrous ideal is the relatively new concept of tax competition.

As Nations strive to attract the best and brightest, the best and brightest in turn look for the places where they will be most free, and nothing says freedom like being able to keep more, not less, of your hard earned cash.

On the other hand human nature being what it is, I'm sure that those looking for a handout would look for the best handouts possible.

I forgive Jack’s ignorance of the ideal of tax competition. After all, if all your ideals were realized in all their horrible glory 91 years ago, and had subsequently imploded 19 years ago, you’d want to retreat to your private mental gulag, stick your fingers in your ears and bawl “Nanananana, I can’t hear you!” too, wouldn’t you?

An excellent essay from SDA

I found this essay on SDA to be so good that it was worth cutting and pasting (for the few readers who might not view SDA). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the choices for your ballot are essentially reduced to answering the question "who will do the least damage to my community, my dreams , my aspirations?"

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009562.html

September 17, 2008

An Essay on the Matter of "Least Bad" Democracy

Government is, generally speaking, the political system by which a body of people are administered and regulated. As George Washington noted, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence ~ it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master". Barry Goldwater said that "government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away". Ronald Reagan said that "the most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Democracy, as George Bernard Shaw noted, "is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few". Oscar Wilde said that "democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people". More exactly, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson said that "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

Perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh, though; Winston Churchill did say that "democracy is the worst form of government we know of except for all the others". (Still, Sir Winston also said that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".) Perhaps Voltaire was closest when he said that "an ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination" (probably not ;-)

H. L. Mencken said, "Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." Voltaire said that "in general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another". George Bernard Shaw said that "government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul".

But H. L. Mencken said it best when he said, about democracy, that:

"Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

Thomas Jefferson noted the biggest problems with all this, as follows:

• "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
• "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
• "Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Simply put: there is too much state redistribution and regulation auctioneering going on. Our government steals too much freedom and pillage to reward panting and pining parasites who are unwilling to be responsible and work, at the expense of the labor of the responsible industrious. That will eventually kill democracy. Is that what we want?

So, as it is not likely that arguing against government or democracy per se are viable political alternatives in Canada for the foreseeable future, and that's probably a good thing, the best available solution to our problems with government in Canada for the foreseeable future can be found by combining Mencken's and Jefferson's results into the following prescription:

In every election, each citizen should vote for the party or candidate that they think will be the least bad auctioneer, in the sense that they will do the least amount of auctioneering.

Unfortunately, too many citizens feel that because they must vote for the least bad alternative, because there is never a most good alternative, they should just skip the whole exercise, or to be extra dashing, make the extra useless effort to spoil their ballot.

Some liberals might say, for example: I'm not going to vote for the liberals because they want to lower income tax and raise consumption tax, and that is not liberal. Or some conservatives might say, for example: I'm not going to vote for the conservatives because they want to raise income tax and lower consumption tax, and that is not conservative. (As were the cases in the last election.)

And for bonus points, nowadays some of those people will run around in blog comments and stamp their little feet and insist that because the party they want to vote for didn't do some particular thing they want or wanted, not only are they not going to vote, but that you are not a valid supporter of that party if you disagree with the little-foot stamper.

People who think like that are being irresponsible citizens; childish at best, evil at worst. In a well-functioning society, and Canada is a well-functioning society, changes happen at the margins. Under these circumstances, the responsible thing to do is to study the data, think carefully, decide who you think is the least bad selection (at the margin), and vote it.

Sure, if you care enough about it, go ahead, form a new party, get on the ballot, win a plurality in the auctioneer contest, and then you can be auctioneer. But you had better be ready to give the people what they want, not what you want, or you won't win a plurality.

Until then, though, it is what it is. Plato said that "the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men". Until your personal political party is in power, it is your civic duty to study the alternatives and to vote for the one you think will do the least amount of auctioneering.

It's the least you can do.

Posted by Vitruvius at September 17, 2008 2:01 AM

Now the other end of the spectrum is not "who will do the least damage to me?" (the Libertarian/Classical Liberal question and view of government) but "who will deliver the loot to me?" (the "Progressive" view of government). For at least 66% of Canadians, that is the key question of the day (the estimated number of voters who support "progressive" parties), which makes this more of an uphill struggle. The desire to live off the effort of someone else taps into two of the most powerful of human emotions; Greed and Envy. The only successful large scale countervailing movement based on Love is Christianity, which of course isn't about political power at all.....

Danny's ABC's - Abysmal Bellyaching Collectivist

Oh... Danny Boy.

Danny Williams wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Screw him.

I'm glad that the PM has told him, in the interests of all of Canada... NO! Though I doubt any of the others would have had the balls to do it I at least hope that they see that it was the right thing to do... Well maybe not

As a Canadian I am sick and tired of having my taxes sent to Newfoundland so that a bunch of the people living there can continue to live in some perverted ideal of a fisherman's paradise where you only work during the season and the rest of Canada pays for you to live for the rest of the year.

NL now has a real industry that will generate real wealth and thats good for NL, but guess what, that means it's time to WORK for what you get, and for longer than it takes to get your pogey cheque.

So, Danny boy... go piss up a rope.

Trading away your rights

This has me pissed.

You know what I really don’t care who it’s for and who it’s against. All the Parties are wrong on fundamentals, some are just more wrong than others.

The thing that has me angry is that this is a corruption of the democratic process. You, and only YOU can cast your vote. That is why YOU… the individual having reached the age of majority have been given the franchise of a single solitary vote.

It is your vote to cast, where you live and for whom you honestly believe has earned it. It is not a right to a proxy, your parents couldn’t exercise your franchise before you turned 18 and this scheme is a perversion of the process, the ideal and the intent behind the most democratic expression of all, namely One Man One Vote.

I’m not big on calling for things to be illegal but if you aren’t allowed to sell your vote, why should you be permitted to give it away like a useless trading card.