O O Ø O O O O
Canada Is Not An Atom
The Rt. Hon. Senator Catalyst
c/o The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
Good day, Senator:
In these writings I am endeavouring to use reason to demonstrate how liberty is increased as populations under a common rule are decreased. In my first letter, entitled In Defence of Separatism, I demonstrated the libertarian desire to eliminate an entire layer of governance. In my second letter, entitled My Republic, I described the fundamental mechanism—the constitution—that would be required to make any country a free and prosperous place. In this letter, I will make the argument for smallness.
Let’s start by playing a game of atomization.
A separatist movement brings the seat of (a noticably smaller) government much closer to the citizens of Alberta. The city state of Calgary lends a greater degree of self determination to Calgarians. In turn, the free enclave of Southwood is even more directly democratic.
Where does it end? Does it need to have an end?
Choosing the current borders of Canada as the smallest desirable division is just so arbitrary. It’s the leftover un-revolutionized British portion of the continent, populated by a spectrum of European cultures, and united by—in no particular order—un-American-ness, socialized medicine, and a bone-deep love of hockey. A tenuous union, made possible only by our almost unimaginably vast resource wealth.
If non-divisibility were a valid argument against separatism, we should all find ourselves still happily part of the British Empire. And that includes the United States and half of the continent of Africa.
If we discredit the notion of manifest destiny as aggressive and at its core intolerantly theist, then there is no reason to think the 20th century’s trend of division of nation states shouldn’t continue. Since 1990, 30 new countries have calved.
There are presently 192 countries in the United Nations, and adding the Vatican gives us a total of 193. Alternately, FIFA counts 208 members, indicating there are 7% more groupings of people thinking of themselves as countries than there are actual countries at the moment. (This might not seem too scientific, but this is futbol, which is globally more important than science.) Atomization of existing nation states is not just desirable, it’s inevitable.
To argue for the perpetuation of any of the present nations is to argue for the perfection of happenstance.
Who would argue that Ireland should still be a British province? Should Pakistan and India still be united? And perhaps those fifteen new countries in eastern Europe and western Asia should still seek protection under a loving Soviet wing.
So smaller is the democratic trend, but is it better? Are there certain capabilities only girth can achieve?
The defence of borders? A trifling task when a country is surrounded by peaceful neighbours, and has no foreign policy—interventionist or otherwise—that might change that.
Defence from foreign attack? There is little a small country can do if a much larger aggressor wanted to roll across its territory. It is important to understand however, that it is not populations who surrender, but governments. If there is no central, controlling government from which to assume the machinations of power, an occupying force would have to post soldiers on every street corner and secret service agents at every doorstep in order to coerce a libertarian population to submit to its will. And to what end? To control that country’s resources? They could simply have purchased them from their owners at market rates, which is immeasurably cheaper and easier than a military occupation. Defence as an argument against separation is simply a red herring.
While critical mass may be useful when negotiating trade agreements, a libertarian government would never try to restrict foreign trade, or negotiate extra-nationally on behalf of its citizens. As if it could know what its citizens, as individuals, would want.
A central bank? An expensive and unnecessary conceit. Governments can’t make money. They can only make and inflate fiat currencies. Citizens of a newborn nation can sort out their own currency (read: gold) without a central bank making it worth less for them.
A country truly needs only a basic constabulary plus criminal and civic court systems, to maintain the rule of law. The essence of law is very straightforward, consisting of two values: Don’t trespass on another’s person or property (criminal law), and do what you say you’re going to do (contract law).
Whatever you may think of the spectrum of roles for a government, there are none where economies of scale apply. Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Monaco are all perfectly functional, peaceful and prosperous countries, none of them much bigger than a Dion Phaneuf slapshot. Small works, and it works well.
Having now used reason to demonstrate the desirability, the operability and the feasibility of new and smaller countries, without resorting to idle nonsense about culture, past experience and destiny, what points are left for the perpetual unionists to make?
Only those based on culture, past experience and destiny.
Thanks for your time, Mr. Catalyst.
Evan Spence
August 22, 2006
OOØOOOODCCLXXVIII
August 28th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
While I can’t say I had considered the need to have a position on Albertan seperatism, you make a compelling argument and provide food for thought.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
You impress me