The Shotgun Blog
« Is Canada a safe-haven for Communist apparatchiks? | Main | The Hot Room - Episode 2 - Politics and culture »
Friday, April 10, 2009
Quote of the day
There's a lot of speculation between those that care about ideas and policy over what needs to be done to get Canada (or any country) on the right track. All too often this debate devolves into an argument over which party is best to lead the country. There's contemplation over whether a party performing poorly is at least better than the alternatives, whether this makes them worth rooting for or not, or even whether there is any meaningful alternative at all.
Stephen Harper should be proof enough to principled conservatives, libertarians, or anyone who believes in smaller government and/or increasing individual liberty that it really does not matter who you elect when the electoral and government institutions of a country are rigged against doing the right thing.
Which brings us to what I declare to be the quote of the day, for no other reason than I wanted to share it:
“The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
- Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman
It's an oldie, but a goodie.
Posted by Janet Neilson on April 10, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Having lived a life time of voting for the lesser of two evils, I was really excited by the prospect of a Harper administration. Until I realized he was no better than any of the rest of them. We now have the largest government in Canadian history, more surveillance (overt and covert)of our daily lives and financial transactions. More "laws of control" than ever before. Just plain more government than anyone ever needed...
I give up. The whole system is rotten to the core and voting is a waste of time and fuel. Unless of course, there is a Libertarian or any other small government candidate running in your riding.
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-10 11:55:46 AM
Excellent "quote of the day," Janet. We need to work toward building a culture of liberty if we ever hope to achieve anything meaningful and lasting through the ballot box.
(Mike Brock kicked off a good debate about culture and liberty that rages still. While I don't think conservative vs liberal values is what is important -- respect for property rights and non-aggression sure are.)
But doesn't public choice teach us that democracy will always lead to big government? Maybe what we have is all we can expect?
My fear is not so much living with the freedoms we have, but watching the systematic erosion of those freedoms wondering how bad things could get.
Having worked in Ottawa for a number of years, the legislative process appeared to me to be crafting a large, loose legislative noose that could be tightened at will. Pierre Lemieux calls this "soft tyranny." But with the legislative foundation in place it can turn from soft to hard virtually overnight. (200,000 gun owners could be jailed tomorrow if not for the optics of mass arrests.)
I’ve heard on countless occasions that argument that while a piece of legislation might empower the state to act in a tyrannical fashion, we can rest assured that the good people in government would never use the full scope of their legal power. This is incredibly naive.
I sometimes feel like a lone kook, as I’m sure many libertarians do, constantly sounding the alarm while everyone else seems entirely unconcerned.
It’s certainly hard to stay optimistic.
But lovely quote. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-10 1:50:51 PM
JC, don't give up hope! Plenty of people see the good sense in letting people live their lives. The more we can build on that, the more chance that we'll one day be able to make a dent in the madness.
Plus, there's always the implications of my favourite quote of all time: "The man who knows freedom will find a way to be free."
– F. A. Harper
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-10 7:24:46 PM
Matthew, at a liberty fund colloquium last year we had a very long discussion over whether there's a good way to protect freedom given the implications of public choice. Some said a constitution was the way to go, but one look at the US (which has what is probably the best constitution that was ever written) shows that that's not the secret. Federalism? Doesn't seem to work all the time, either.
I really do think that it's a mixture of institutions and personal values that lead to a sustainably free society. (Maybe not as free as we'd like it to be, but mostly free.) I think one of the biggest long-term threats to freedom these days is laws that take away the option of making moral choices and remove the incentive to develop the character (as Larry Reed would put it) that is needed to sustain a free society.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-10 7:32:24 PM
As always, the strategy for achieving liberty is multi-frontal, as you say.
I like constitutional constraints, I like the devolution of power and a like the character-building power of choice -- all of which can make us freer.
Thanks for your answer. I'm looking for reasons to be optimistic. I think I'll read "Inclined to Liberty." It talks about the irrepressible human desire for freedom and futility of collectivism.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-10 7:44:24 PM
>>Having lived a life time of voting for the lesser of two evils, I was really excited by the prospect of a Harper administration. Until I realized he was no better than any of the rest of them. We now have the largest government in Canadian history, more surveillance (overt and covert) of our daily lives and financial transactions. More "laws of control" than ever before. Just plain more government than anyone ever needed... I give up. The whole system is rotten to the core.
Now that is not true...the problem lies not in the system but in the person himself...Power corrupts some persons...clearly to stay in power PM Stephen Harper sold his supporters and his stated values himself...he chose to do so by himself. He too became like those he had bashed before.
Posted by: thenonconformer | 2009-04-10 10:35:44 PM
thenonconformer
Point taken, and I agree and disagree. I believe we do have the largest government with the most sweeping powers in Canadian history. And I believe that the system allows for this, so the system has lost its way.
But, you are probably dead on re: Harper's personal values, which in my mind are "none".
What a complete disappointment that man has turned out to be.
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-11 6:36:41 AM
Janet,
I haven't really given up hope...so much as I've given up participating in an obviously corrupt system. I think it will get worse before it gets better because Canadians are so apathetic.
But it will get better...
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-11 6:38:47 AM
nonconformer:
To say that the system has nothing to do with it would imply that Harper gained power and tossed aside his values/supporters for no reason other than he was able to gain power. This is, of course, silly. Harper saw that a decision to jettison his values was politically expedient - easy votes - and this is a result of having a flawed, if not broken, system.
On the other hand, while I don't think Harper could have been perfect under the system we have even if he had stood up for his values I do think he could have made a lot more headway than he has.
Both a flawed system and a politician, rather than a statesman (to borrow more terminology from Larry Reed), running the country contributed to the mess we're in now, but a system that rewarded good performance rather than political expediency, even coupled with a completely opportunist, value-devoid Prime Minister would still improve things. As such, I think the character of the guy in charge has less to do with it than changing both public opinion and the rules of the game.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-11 9:26:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.