Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Fighter Jets, Pipelines, and Climate Change
Are you sure you weren't conditioned by the schools?
Did your parents reiterate statist beliefs?
Have you mistaken the self-governing aspect of the market order for a strong, central state?
This is why democracy is a sick joke.
If fighter jets, pipelines, and climate change are the three issues facing Canada, then here is what to do:
There’s a CF-18 fighter jet replacement program. Navdeep Bains is the MP that will be heading to an air show on the taxpayer’s dime to meet representatives from Boeing and Bombardier.
The latter of which is seeking a $1-billion bailout from Ottawa after taking $1.3-billion from Quebec government.
But don’t you worry your little statist brain, MP Navdeep will find a buyer for all us idiot Canadians, for, without the federal government, who would provide security services for the common good? Corporations?
Well, that's the way it is now, where Boeing and Bombardier are friendly with one another when it comes to government contracts.
If you could be plan a free society, then what would it look like?
Plan? If it could be, then it would be, and since it can't be, you shouldn't even try.
But since that never persuades, why not stretch that idea muscle and think of ten ideas on how a society would function without bailing out Bombardier and having federal bureaucrats provide security for the entire nation.
1) The current government model but with payment voluntary and terms of service negotiated with consumers through contracts.
2) Because national defence poses great externality risks, (e.g. death of innocent people, refugees from violent conflicts, consequences of assassinations, financial costs, use of nuclear weapons), then the fear of organized crime taking over is a legitimate one. Hence, why contractual obligations kept in check by third-party arbitrators would fair better.
Since "money" buys the process anyway, might as well make it official and embrace a for-profit justice system... although you might want to get rid of the central bank first...
So if this all backfires:
3) That a society could form a civil government on an unwritten social contract and not kill each other presupposes peace and so a governing structure built on actual contracts would also not result in mass murder, but an improvement on the status quo.
Now your turn to think of seven more. I have to talk about pipelines.
Because Albertans accidentally went socialist in the 2015 provincial election, NDP Premier Rachel Notley is willing to strike a deal with the BC Liberals over electricity.
If the British Columbian government receives federal loot to fund a hydroelectric project, then Notley can wean Alberta off coal by buying from the province next door.
But that’s if BC gets the taxpayer’s loot. Trudeau says you must let us build a pipeline to the west coast.
The BC government rejected the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and now Ottawa is hoping to rework the regulations and continue the process.
The BC Liberals want their share of the loot, but without upsetting the First Nations who are also being promised “benefits.”
Nowhere in this debate does the federal Liberal Party need to be involved.
For, British Columbians don’t require a federal government in Ottawa. All affairs can be conducted internally, there is no value to Ottawa, it’s just an extra middle-man.
But worse, since we’re all forced to pay taxes, and the federal Canada Revenue Agency has taken charge, it's a top-heavy bureaucracy that sucks the taxpayer dry.
If taxes went the other way, from producer to local government then provincial government and then to, oh right, we don't need the federal government…
It would fix the last issue: climate change.
Regardless of your opinions on C02 emissions, and certainly my understanding has wavered for the decade, the idea that government central planning can do anything but destroy is an a priori category of human action.
The free enterprise system is the most superior mode of social organization known to man. It is beyond ridiculous and perhaps criminal to reject its role in solving the issue of environmental degradation.
And pipelines, and fighter jets.
As Jon Ivison wrote in the National Post, "All governments value the dead hand of bureaucracy over the invisible hand of markets – otherwise, what are they there for?"
Indeed, what are they here for? Why the hell does society need the dead hand of bureaucracy?