"Why I Protest"

In the absence of a full blog for right now, I thought I would quote Ron Paul’s reference in Liberty Defined to Elie Wiesels’s One Generation After. It’s called “Why I Protest.”

“Author Elie Wiesel tells the story of the one righteous man of Sodom, who walked the streets protesting against the injustice of this city. People made fun of him, derided him. Finally, a young person aksed: “Why do you continue your protest against evil; can’t you see no one is paying attention to you?” He answered, I’ll tell you why I continue. In the beginning, I thought I would change people. Today, I know I cannot. Yet, if I continue in my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me.”

“Dude if it wasn’t for government, who would provide our roads?” The Myth of Government Infrastructure

I owe the title of this entry to one friend in particular who blurted the above quote out to me while we were having a discussion on government in general. In reality however, I owe the whole idea for it to several people, and numerous discussions; I have to admit that I get great amusement from friends who know some of my views on minimal government. Unfortunately however, I quickly move from amusement to sadness.

It’s starts off amusing because although I cannot find one of them who doesn’t agree with me that we far, far too much government and need to reel it in, and above all, demand from them greater accountability and responsibility (which clearly we have next to none of currently), invariably they all reach a quick state of panic that by minimizing government, we will quickly threaten the very foundations not just of society, but our own well-being. And this is where it goes from amusing to sad. Canadians have become so government dependent that we have no realization that the majority of what we depend on government for, we could do better ourselves as individuals within communities. It’s not that the thought escapes us; the very notion has simply never occurred to us.

And this is where government has done some of it’s most outstanding work in spreading our consuming dependency on it: it has convinced otherwise intelligent people that without their benevolent supervision and control, the whole infrastructure of society would quickly collapse. 

Of all of our entrenched myths, this one should be one of the more easy to dispel and see through. Like most however, our greatest hindrance is that we neglect the obvious answers to this problem, and search for the more complicated ones.

The myth of benevolent, government provided infrastructure takes many practical daily forms (we could use hospitals for example), but for the sake of simplicity, let’s stick to my friend’s argument: without government, how would one have roads?

Currently, roads are constructed when the provincial government takes your money (i.e., tax), then allocates those funds to different cities\communities. In other words, the government generously decides what portion of your money which it has already taken from you, it wishes to return in the form of something you possibly see no use for, and as such, obviously wouldn’t want to pay for.

In order to refute this theory, let’s imagine a typical community.  The people of this community want to build some new roads; however, without this wonderful, wise institution to oversee and micromanage every detail, they are left with a daunting reality: they have to come up with a solution themselves.

The first thing to address is the issue of funding. The common objection people raise is that government provides the funding for the roads in the first place. We first must stop treating government like it is a person or a business (although it is run like a mafia-style corporation in it’s current state). Government produces no goods or services which it may sell or trade on the free market. One immediately needs to understand that “government” has no money except that which it has already taken from citizens via taxation. In other words, the money that government has, it has taken from you, whether you like it or not. Thus, removing government from the process doesn’t affect how much money there is to build roads (in fact, as we will see, it actually increases it). Put it like this: let’s say that through taxation, every citizen pays $100 yearly of their salary currently for the building and maintenance of the roads in their community. You do not suddenly have less of your salary for those roads just because there is no government taxing your income for it. Your salary, as well of the others in your community remains the same.

Since the funds are clearly already available, the next obstacle we face in our road building would be the collection of those funds. This however, should be the easiest to thing to do; people within our community already clearly see the need we have for our roads. Getting reasonable people to participate in the funding of something that they see as useful will be easy. What if some within the community don’t see the use for a road? Equally simple: they clearly see no value in them; so therefore, they are free not to use them. They should not be forced to participate in the funding for them, and obviously, they see no value in them, so there is no reason to believe that they would want to use them. If, in the future they see they change their minds, then an issue of user fees may come into place. That, however, deals with the future use of the roads; at this point, we will concern ourselves only with their construction.

So our next issue: what of organization for overseeing the funds? History has shown that time and again, when people are faced with a crisis whether it is large or small, they find a way to band together to overcome the problems that face them. Obstacles tend to motivate individuals, families, and communities to set aside whatever differences they might have, and find a way to bond together to overcome. This is true of large scale problems; certainly, it’s not difficult to envision a community selecting some leaders from within it that can be mutually agreed upon to bring about a solution to the problem before it, in this case, the construction of roads.

And now is where it gets really interesting to see how much more, not less, efficient these communities will be than a large scale, centralized government. The funds are in place, we have selected some temporary leaders to oversee the project, yet they are people who not only are accountable to us on a more intimate level—after all, they are your neighbours—but they also have a personal interest in the efficiency of the project: the roads are in their community too. As a further bonus, they have but one agenda, and it’s that of good roads. They are not seeking election for any office, nor are they under the illusion that they will have further power past the short-term responsibility of building the roads. So, quick now, think of your own neighbourhood: who is more likely to want to ensure that the roads that you paid for are both of good quality, and reasonable price? You and those around you, or some autocrat in a far off capital city? The answer is obvious, and here is where a decentralized system destroys the current model.

As the roads are in your own community, you and your neighbours are likely to take the time to make sure you get the best quality for your hard-earned dollars; you will not dole out your cash to those with party affiliations, nor prior patronage appointments. The waste I had blogged about previously (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/firms-with-bc-liberal-ties-awarded-secret-contracts-in-pro-hst-campaign/article2109375/) is unlikely to happen, and even if somehow through an unscrupulous community member tried to do something similar, enough other members of the community could quickly reel it in. In it’s worse case possibility, it can’t approach the waste we find daily in larger government.

Which brings us to the true bottom line: assuming our previous example of every person in the community who is already being taxed by the government is losing a $100 yearly for those roads, how much of that actual $100 do you think is going to the road vs. the amount that is going to support the bureaucratic process that ultimately has little or nothing at all to do with your road? Much of the money that we think goes to the building of the roads and other infrastructure is obviously wasted in epic proportions by people who have absolutely no interest in your personal prosperity. And, tragically, you are paying them to waste it.

The reality is that there is very little, if anything, that a large, centralized government can do that a group of people within their own communities can’t do better, and with far less waste. We are so ingrained with our dependency on government that we have been brainwashed into thinking that absent it, the world would fall apart. Nothing could be further from the truth; it’s time for us to realize that as a concerned and dedicated community of individuals working together for common goals, we have the ability to achieve far greater things than any monopolistic state can. We have bought into the propaganda that we need our government to breastfeed us, nurse us and then change our diapers which we will never grow out of, because they keep us in a cycle of continual dependency to repeat the process. The only way it can stop is for us as individuals to realize the answer to my friends’ question:  Who would provide roads for us if there was no government? The same people who already do provide them.

Only, we would do it infinitely better. 

The Bastardisation of Privilege

I had wanted originally planned on my first post being something different. However, I woke up one morning last week, and an article in The Globe And Mail one morning last week practically reached out and grabbed me. As I have re-read the article several times, I realized I couldn’t let it go. The link is below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/firms-with-bc-liberal-ties-awarded-secret-contracts-in-pro-hst-campaign/article2109375/

Upon reading the article, it becomes obvious why anyone who believes that governments have abandoned any pretense of accountability in our country would be deeply troubled by these revelations. The more frightening issue after reading it is that this probably represents a very small portion of the abuse practiced on a regular basis by every level of Canadian government. 

The issues of financial mismanagement are troubling enough. While I have never had my own series of Town Hall Meetings, I am left to wonder how they merit a firm being paid well over $150,000 of taxpayers’ livelihood simply to put them on. As to a website that dipped into your pockets for a further $50,000, well, one wonders what amazing technology was needed to the tune of $50k, or what proofreading and writing were needed  that would take yet another $40k from the public (i.e., you).

The rest of the ludicrous economic waste is clearly laid out in the article. The removal of any bidding process for these lucrative contracts ensures that your money was spent without a moment’s thought of getting any form of value for them, something that any manager in a private industry would be promptly and correctly fired for. While the combination of fund wasting absent of a competitive process for the contracts is infuriating by itself, this is simply typical government behaviour; it is difficult to believe that if we ever had an accurate breakdown on government fiscal mismanagement, we would not think ourselves fortunate to “only” be relieved of some $250,000 on a regular basis. The figures would be staggering, and a few hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer income a mere drop in the bucket.

Several other issues raised my ire in this article, some financial, for instance, the “purely logistical” (whatever that means in the context of an HST document) work given to a man who just happened to be an ex-aide (who’s “purely logistical” consulting fees subsequently not-so-purely doubled), to ethical (question: how many of these non-competing contracts were given to those not affiliated with the Liberal Party? Or better yet, having no real political ties at all? Take your time; the math is easy on this).

However, it is the reason that government is able to engage in such unchecked pillaging at the public’s expense that I find considerably more distressing; in many ways, it is the reason why I started this blog in the first place, and perhaps is it no better encapsulated than in the following quote:

‘Finance Ministry communications director Matt Gordon said that justification was used because the “information, strategies and discussions” disclosed during such a competition would have been of a “privileged” nature.’

(This comes from the same man who later in the article comfortingly reassures us that the fact that former Liberal caucus director’s $25,000 contract was given based on reputation, not affiliation. In case you needed reassuring that it was sheer coincidence she just happened to have her former position within the party that handed her your cash).

What is supposed to be true “parliamentary privilege” has not changed in it’s definition for close to 150 years.  The Canadian concept of privilege comes from the British one which preceded and is derived from Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. Briefly, it was defined thusly:

Individual parliamentary privileges include:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom from arrest in civil action
3. Exemption from jury duty
4. Exemption from appearing as a witness
5. Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation

Collective parliamentary privileges include:

1. Power to discipline
2. Regulation of the House’s internal affairs
3. Management of Employees
4. Authority to maintain the attendance and service of Members
5. Right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers
6. Right to administer oaths to witnesses
7. Right to publish papers containing defamatory material

While there have been some amendments over the course of time, the basic premise of “privilege” was as clear in 1800’s as it is supposed to be today: privilege is extended to members of an assembly to ensure freedom of speech, especially as it regards performance of their civic responsibilities, and their ability to express without fear of consequence their opinions on the matters before them. (Note: for an excellent summary of this, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch03&Seq=2.)

The link I refer to above is prefaced by a quote from The Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, the former Speaker of The House, where he offers his very succinct and accurate observation on privilege: “In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.” Not even the smallest doubt can exist: privilege was to guard freedom of speech, and things that pertained to it. In other words, in absolutely no conceivable way was the honourable concept of privilege meant to become the impregnable veil of secrecy that shrouds government from being accountable to the very people it derives its existence from.

Unfortunately, the arrogance exhibited by Mr. Gordon is well-earned. They play us for idiots. Sadly though, he knows, as do most politicians, that few Canadians have a concept of what privilege is, much less what it was originally meant to be. So off they lead us; and in our ignorance, off we go.

Calling the government into account for it’s own unethical behaviour is useless; few politicians have a desire to be accountable if they can avoid doing so. The only way this will be accomplished is when the public themselves view that accountability as their right from every level of those they have elected to govern over them, and demand it accordingly. 

Simply put: if we don’t shake off our apathy, we can expect not more of the same, but much worse, and eventually see the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”