Flanagan is right: the issue is government is too big

Tom Flanagan is absolutely right when he says in this opinion piece that the real problem of the Conservative government is that it has not acted conservative enough. Dr. Flanagan points out the three most damaging recent issues for the government could have been avoided if the Conservatives had been reducing the size of government rather than increasing the size of government.

Rahim Jaffer:

Could have been avoided if the taps for corporate welfare were being turned off, or at least being slowed to a trickle. There would be no reason for a business to hire someone purely for their connections with the PMO (real or imagined) if there was little prospect of getting their hands on the government’s purse strings.

Abortion issue:

This whole re-emergence of the abortion debate began when the government committed itself to more, as Dr. Flanagan puts it, government to government aide. There is plenty of data to support the conclusion that this sort of aide does more harm to good. In fact many conservatives have been arguing that for a generation. The answer lies in open trade, enforcement of property rights, and perhaps micro-loans. If the Harper government had been saying that from the beginning, abortion would not have gotten on the agenda.

Gay pride parade:

The government was accused of being homophobic because they stopped funding the gay pride parade. A more important issue was why were they funding the parade in the first place? Also, why are the funding any parade anywhere? Why is this an appropriate role for the government. If the Conservatives had not increased funding for cultural events but instead cut back on all events, this would never have been an issue.

I’ll go farther and say that most of our modern day hot button emotional issues originate from government being too big. There has been a lot of talk about a culture war in Canada and the United States. At the core of this ‘war’ is the assumption that the government has a role to play in directing the culture and course of society. The very fact that this debate is taking place shows that there is no consensus on how people should live or what choices they should make.

So then why should one person be forced to pay for the life style of another? Why should Torontonians be forced to pay for parades in Calgary and vice versa? Why should government pick the winners and losers of the business world by handing out tax dollars? Why should we be forced to send money to reinforce corrupt regimes and dysfunctional economies?

There will always be a debate in society about how we should best live our lives. But that debate will only be civilized if it can be won by demonstrating the validity of your choices by living them, instead of forcing others to live them with you.