Posts
To be fair to Mr. Ibbitson he gives an adequate description of what a libertarian is:
The term refers to those who believe that the duty of government is to guard the borders, patrol the streets and enforce contracts. In all other matters, the individual should be free to pursue his own ends, unfettered by government restraint.
His argument that Mr. Harper fits this description doesn’t past the sniffing test. All his circumstantial evidence that Mr. Harper is a libertarian is based on what he used to be:
But Mr. Harper is, in his bones, a libertarian: educated at the University of Calgary, where those minimalist principles are warmly viewed; first elected to Parliament as a Reformer; once the head of the National Citizens’ Coalition. He comes as close as any prime minister ever has to embracing the concept of the night-watchman state.
First of all, I can name a number of Prime Ministers that are much closer to believing in the “night-watchman state” (pretty much any Prime Minister before Deifenbaker). Second of all, a resume is pretty unconvincing, especially when you consider the actions he has taken as Prime Minister.
Mr. Ibbitson’s case becomes even weaker when he admits himself that Mr. Harper is not actually a libertarian:
Mr. Harper does not believe those are the only priorities of government, but he does believe they should be its first priorities.
So if Mr. Ibbitson is defining a libertarian as someone who believes that defence, justice, and contract enforcement are the only justified activities of the state, and then he saying that Mr. Harper believes that there are more justified activities. Then logically Mr. Ibitson is admitting that Mr. Harper does not in fact believe in the “night-watchman state” and that he is not a libertarian. This leaves me somewhat puzzled about what exactly Mr. Ibbitson is trying to say.
Mr. Ibbitson tries to clarify his point:
There are many other elements to this government, which betrays the night-watchman-state principle more often than it enforces it. But the emotional bond to the idea resides within the Prime Minister, and all of us recognize this.
Okay so if Mr. Harper has an “emotional bond” to libertarianism then why did he publicly denounce libertarian ideas as leading directly to the recession?
Mr. Ibbitson seems to be desperately trying to show that there is a real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. At the same time he is honest enough that he cannot avoid admitting that there is no difference. Neither party offers a radically different vision of government. Both parties believe in a state that interferes in the peaceful lives of individuals.
5 comments:
I'm not sure if I have a point to make but aren't we conflating "leader of the party" with "the party"? The party has a constitution and has policy conventions and any leader is bound by those principles. The party is not an expression of the leader, it is the leader who expresses the party. So it's really not even a valid argument to equate his political philosophy with what the party has done while in government. He could very well be a Libertarian leading a party which constitutionally isn't Libertarian.
On the other hand, he did throw Libertarians under the bus which is much more convincing than the government argument.
A leader has considerable influence over public policy and rhetoric used by party members. I agree that even if he is libertarian he would be constrained so he could not act completely libertarian. But if he is libertarian I would expect him to act more libertarian.
And then there is the whole throwing libertarians under the bus thing.
"Neither party offers a radically different vision of government."
Such is the nature of minority Parliaments?
It's been rocky enough trying to remain a bulwark against socialist parties and their MSM minions, had they dug their heels in the sand and never spent a dime of stimulus outside for the above prescribed parameters of "what is a libertarian", they'd of been tossed out by the pro-socialist electorate. Up until recently, voters have finally begun to draw closer away from the left & center and more to the right of the political spectrum.
It took some dismantling of false stereo-types made up of the "religious, woman-hating, guntoting-fanatics" or "cold-hearted-conservative-cutters" that the media of left made out of Mike Harris.
It took a generation, but a lot of young foolish folk voted liberal after that in Ontario.
It takes time to win all those minds back. Would of taken even longer without the aid of the Internet and direct CPAC/Parliamentary broadcasts.
"On the other hand, he did throw Libertarians under the bus which is much more convincing than the government argument."
No. His aim was at the fringe libertarian party of Canada it its fringe supporters who continue to speak as if they were born last week and remain historically illiterate as to why things are as they are yet they demand such sudden changes without first establishing how to properly go about implementing such changes.
I would also argue that not voting CPC is also counter to any libertarian goals as they cannot be achieve via the socialist opposition parties or fringe parties. Nor is it an over night difference that can be implemented in one term or in a minority situation like this. We're also not in the dire situation the U.S. is in and don't need to resort to extreme cuts or jolts to the status quo beyond what it is capable of handling else risk facing the pendulum effect. I prefer a gradual yet permanent shift toward libertarianism and freedom.
Not to be slow but to be sure.
Fortunately the political winds are changing in favor of fiscal constraint and eventual liberty.
What you don't want is for such things to be undone by political upheaval.
"To be fair to Mr. Ibbitson he gives an adequate description of what a libertarian is:
The term refers to those who believe that the duty of government is to guard the borders, patrol the streets and enforce contracts. In all other matters, the individual should be free to pursue his own ends, unfettered by government restraint."
So long as those "ends" don't conflict or violate the freedom of others. <-(to paraphrase Milton Friedman.)
Some level of government is required to accomplish this and in some instances a safety net--naAAaay--a trampoline; to help people immediately bounce back from cyclical down turns or natural disasters.
Giving a hand up rather than a handout.
Conservative Libertarians typically promote a healthy business atmosphere of competition and mutual exchange that rewards hard-work & investment, rather than cut-throat, survival of the fittest, race to the "top" schemes.
It could be argued that social libertarians prefer the live & let live approach. Choosing to lead by example rather then preach by dogma.
What they are not is Puritans or isolationist (the latter being a well intended jab at Ron Paul's foreign policy!).
"voters have finally begun to draw closer away from the left & center and more to the right of the political spectrum"
I'll be damned if anybody can actually provide evidence for this.
What I meant to point out is that libertarianism isn't supposed to be about zero government or zero taxation, but about optimal freedom standards.
[Economics: See Rahn Curve, Laffer Curve, respectively]
Standards that don't conflict with how others choose to live their lives within reasonable confines of living up to one's responsibility of one's own actions.
Primarily, libertarians are supposed to be opposed to group think even within their own spectrum. Away from populism/popularism as possible as their antithesis and toward individual individuality. Get it?
Forcing purity in this spectrum does little to achieve its intended result, but just as being to one extreme brings about a counter response. Even if that fits who your are or what you would do, it doesn't mean it is the only way to go about doing it.
What matters in the grand scheme of things is that the most workable answers of the day be applied properly. Paving the ground work for future improvements. Canada isn't about to implode in a pile of debt tomorrow or next week. (though Ontario's debt to GDP is getting out of hand and will require more drastic action from the next government.)
But not every solution requires a purely libertarian or even conservative answer. A bit of pragmatism is more capable. Not anchored to one set of ideals but applies things holistically to its completeness.
^done typing on that right now. sounds too preachy. too hasty to make an effort to phrase things better.
@ ANON, March 27, 2011 3:14 PM
I'd say, if Toronto is willing to forgo socialist and vote Rob Ford they'll be plenty to vote conservative federally. especially against a coalition and especially if the CPC plans to make reasonable cost cutting measures that don't create instabilities. I imagine they'll be able to do so without much fuss. I don't see unions crippling anything as it would only delay the enevitable and make them worse off.
Post a Comment