O O Ø O O O O
Conversations In My Head
They’re Watching Me
The City of Calgary has installed a whizzy new water meter reading device in my house.
It’s super-convenient, because it wirelessly transmits the reading to City meter readers as they drive past: no missed readings because both of us work during the day.
This is totally an invasion of privacy. I’m being electronically surveilled.
But wouldn’t I rather have the convenience and accuracy of the wireless system?
This is about choice. Yes, I enjoy the convenience, even at risk of reduced privacy, but no one asked me. I was told that my behaviour was to be monitored and remotely surveilled by government agents. If I had the choice between Company A and Company B, which offered different degrees of metering, I could pick the one with the service method and policies I prefer. As is, I’m stuck with the same solution as everyone else. Namely, a government water monopoly with intrusive metering techniques under a veneer of benign convenience.
I love it when the government decides for me.
They’re Trying To Kill Me
I hate smoke in bars.
I like the idea of smoke-free bars.
I hate the reality of laws enacted to prohibit smoking in bars.
Government is a contemptuous, inefficient, frequently corrupt, and inherently stupid method of arranging a population’s affairs. Whenever it sets out to accomplish something, it invariably gets it wrong.
The reality of Calgary’s smoking bylaw is that no one can smoke on a bar’s patio, because smoke may drift out onto the public sidewalk. The result is even smokier interiors. Government set out to accomplish one thing (limiting smoking in bars), and it achieved the opposite.
The City has promised to revisit the issue in 2008. No doubt they will vote to phase-in the ban, by first eliminating cigarette filters for a few years.
But they’ll get there eventually, and then the air in the Ship & Anchor will finally be as pleasant as the fumes from the idling SUVs outside will allow.
So what? The reality is this: not enough people want smoke free bars. If there was an actual demand, there would be bars prohibiting smoking voluntarily. Proof? The Yardhouse, one block down the Red Mile from the Ship, started business as a smoke-free destination, then promptly abandoned the concept. People like to smoke when they drink and watch sports.
Maybe the City is trying to protect workers in the hospitality industry.
Meaning waitresses? Not by the evidence. Our bars are smokier than ever.
Government in action: the opposite of what you want.
Yet They Still Want Me To Vote For Them
There’s a federal election coming up. (An advance apology to our American readers, who will have to put up with a certain base level of Canadian election ranting over the coming two months. We ourselves put up with quite a lot of American election ranting, but are now in the habit of holding much more frequent elections.) For whom should I vote?
No one. They’re all big-government candidates, including the capital-C Conservatives.
But I have to pick someone, even if it’s the lesser of several evils.
No I don’t. If I vote for evil, I can’t complain when the government actually conjurs it.
But if I don’t vote, I can’t complain at all. (And then what would I rant about on Tuesdays?)
Please. If I hold my nose and vote for the Conservatives, I will be explicitly supporting toughened drug laws (victimless crimes against the state), a government child care support scheme, some sort of government-initiated skilled trade apprentice programme, and good old fashioned subsidies for farmers, loggers, fishermen, and miners. If the Tories were to be elected, they wouldn’t wake up on January 24th and say to themselves. “Gee, a lot of people voted for us despite our big government policies. We should tone those down.” No, they will wake up and say to themselves, “They like us! They really, really like us!” Then they would set about implementing their big-government mandate.
If I hold my nose and vote for the Liberals (imagine!), I will be explicity supporting every rotten, corrupt, misguided, mishandled big government programme that’s been squeezing the spirit out of this country for the last three decades.
What about the Libertarians I love so much?
I would happily vote Libertarian, or even for a libertarian-minded independent, if there were any running in my riding. Barring that, better not to vote for evil at all.
Wouldn’t spoiling my ballot send a stronger message than just being one among the dissatisfied non-voting masses?
Perhaps, but when was the last time the media reported on the percentage of spoiled ballots? You have to dig through the raw data on the Elections Canada web site to find a stat that shows the spoiled ballot count. On the other hand, voter turnout is regularly reported. And lamented. Better that than the devils we know.
If I’m so damned principled, why don’t I run for office?
Please. Canadians have consistently shown they have no appetite for smaller government, and I don’t have the stomach for knocking on doors trying to change their minds. My life is better if I simply refrain from voting, and endeavour to foment revolution from my bar stool.
Agreed.
Evan Spence
December 7, 2005
OOØOOOODCCXXXIII
December 7th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Green party?
December 11th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
The Green Party of Canada is not in favour of smaller government. They are in favour of managing every aspect of Canadians’ lives in order to achieve their agenda.
I may agree with many parts of their agenda (such as the part about an environment not in ruins), but I cannot abide their tactics: bigger government.
I don’t have stats at hand, but I’m pretty sure governments are the biggest polluters in Canada.
December 11th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Oh, but the Green Party does have the prettiest logo.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Well, I am American, but I think my observation applies to most representative democracies.
If you vote for a party and then dislike some of the things they do, you still have the freedom to call up your representative and tell him or her, “I am in favor of policy A, and in the upcoming Parliamentary vote I would like my representative to vote for it. I voted for you in the last election, and if you–my representative–doesn’t support it, I won’t be able to support you or your party in the next election.”
Threatening the loss of a vote is far more effective than the non-threat of “I didn’t vote for you before and I’m not going to vote for you in the future.”
My philosophy is to vote for the most effective party (with whom I mostly agree), and then try to steer that effectiveness to the areas you care about.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Your strategy seems reasonable. If only there were some small government parties to ‘steer.’
It certainly makes no sense to vote for a big government party, then attempt to change them into the opposite.