There have been a number of mega-issues lately in the news, carrying a common thread: first, the Australians wanted to buy Saskatchewan’s PotashCorp; second, the CRTC made a ruling about internet bandwidth; third, the London stock exchange is hoping to takeover the Toronto stock exchange; fourth, PetroChina wants to take over Encana Corp.; and fifth, wind projects in Lake Ontario have been put on hold, contracts cancelled.
What they all have in common, are politicians bouncing about squealing about “the public interest”. For starters, I can readily pick on Tony Clement, our Conservative “Industry Minister”, as he has been the Federal State’s point man on many of these items. He vetoed the PotashCorp takeover bid, he is presently reviewing China’s largest venture into “our” oil patch [Encana: Feb 12 G&M, B2], and will in due course end up with the TSX proposal on his desk. And as in all good Soviet dictatorships, he is the Mandarin of the Politburo who will decide what is in the Party’s “Best Interests” on these sort of topics. I can also pick on Ontario’s Finance Minister [a Liberal, in this case] who is poking about the TSX proposal [Feb 12 G&M, A3], and I suspect the surprise decision to ban wind turbines from Lake Ontario [Feb 12 G&M, B11], although that might have been the Environment Minister (although it doesn’t really matter which of them it was: same Party, same Mentality). And of course Prime Minister Harper has jumped in on the Government’s {CRTC} decision regarding internet bandwidth availability. All the “decisions” by the Ministers will be portrayed as being for “the public good”, but that of course is a meaningless, undefined, and undefinable concept, unless it simply means what is best for the Government of the day.
A number of Canadians have grown up with “shepherd” States and cannot conceive that just maybe Government’s don’t know what is best. That’s a startling view for anyone who missed out on the War in Viet Nam, let alone World Wars II, or I. However, for recent examples requiring little effort to investigate, also in today’s paper [Feb 12 G&M, B5] is the story that President Obama is currently looking to deconstruct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, institutions created by previous “caring and thoughtful” American Governments in 1938 and 1997 respectively: knowing now the roles of these mortgage guarantors in the 2007 economic meltdown, and that they were created originally for reasons of political popularity in their day, can one say they were “in the public interest”, or not? How the heck can anyone know the answer? Which public? Which interest? At what point in time? Or for another obvious example… Egypt is in the midst of a Revolution to topple a 30 year dictatorship. Were not Mubarek’s efforts at administration over all those years “in the public interest”? Who knows? But I bet he would say so, and he was after all the Pharoah. How does one measure such a claim? Heck, is the current Revolution itself in “the public interest”? For that matter, I defy anyone to positively assert that the political outcome of the Battle of Hastings in 1066, or the English Civil War, or the American, French, Russian or Chinese Revolutions or any other event in history was in “the public interest”. My point is: Governments are just other people. The mantle of “Government” does not mean something super-human. They make mistakes and one of their silliest is their claim to know “the public interest”, as if that were One Thing, and as if they have the Omniscience to know what that One Thing is.
But decisions sometimes need to be made nevertheless. How do you make decisions in your family? Do you bring in your neighbours to vote on whether you buy a car, order a steak, or have an operation? Not usually, since it’s none of their business. It’s your affair, your concern, your business. You are a Capitalist, because you hold a belief that things that are yours, are for you to decide. You don’t require, or invite, a Government review of your intentions. There is no Democracy, no voters, in your bank account, at your dinner table, or by your death-bed.
If you owned shares of Encana, or PotashCorp, or the Toronto Stock Exchange, you might expect that you would be the one who got to decide whether you would sell your shares to Chinese, Australian, English or any other investor. If you are a Canadian Nationalist by nature, you might say ‘no’ (until the price went high enough); but the choice would be yours, as with any other shareholder. You would decide what is in “your own best interests”, whether or not that included appeasing your nationalistic disposition. You don’t need a vote of your neighbours to help you decide. You might be wrong, of course, (the price could rise higher tomorrow) but who could possibly claim to know your ‘best interests’ better than you? But no, in this world the Party will decide what is in “our” best interests, even though you are the shareholder. As an aside, I apologize for what my Government is doing to you, purportedly in my name. For what it is worth, I reject the assertion that the Party speaks for me, and am doing what I can to stop them.
However, having said that, what irritates me more than the Government being slimy (which is little surprise, as it has evolved to tempt out the worst), are the squeeky wheel voters out there who are delighted to take a free-ride on the Government’s coat-tails, at the expense of their neighbours. The Government does what it does because it works: voters keep rewarding these thieves, which is why “the public interest” is no more than “the Party’s interest”. Every one of us gets irritated watching Quebec get hand-outs: it’s not “in the public interest”, unless you live in Quebec, now is it? It’s because the British North America Act gave a bunch of Parliamentary seats to that Province, and the rest of us get to pay the cost of the Party’s ongoing bribe. But it is no different when people rally to oppose the sale of Encana, PotashCorp, TSX or any other publicly traded enterprise: your Nationalistic outcry lends strength to the State to impose an unfree outcome because of the votes involved. Do you want to be a Nationalist and oppose a sale? Super, good for you, but put your money where your mouth is: you buy the shares and not sell them to foreigners all you want. Better yet, buy the shares and bequeeth them to the State. But don’t use a law to force a veto of the sale: that’s the action of a pirate. If you are a Nationalist don’t sacrifice your neighbour’s property rights to your cause: have the integrity to pay for your own beliefs.
Similarly, just because you smell a chance to obtain all the internet movies you want without having to pay for them… are you really so stuck on the morality of your actions? Being a Capitalist means not only valuing your own property, and the perfectly normal craving to have more of what you value, but fundamentally respecting the Concept of Property Rights. The Rule which protects yours, protects others. If you saw a lady drop her purse, most Canadians would promptly return it to her. That’s Good: we rightly vilify the thief who keeps the purse. So if the Government offered to pass a Law that made it legal to keep a lady’s purse if she dropped it…. would you not see that such a law was immoral? Would you not return the purse to her regardless, even if you could keep it legally? That is Respect for Property Rights: that is Capitalism. Ethics trump Law (if that’s a strange notion, watch a movie called “Judgment at Nuremberg” with Spencer Tracy). So if the Government offers to pass a law to take away from Bell or Rogers the internet machinery which belongs to them, because lots of voters want not to pay for what they desire, what kind of Canadian cheers? That is the Law of Plunder, the Law of Piracy; it is not what a proper and ethical Government should be advocating, no matter how many people squeal for a cheaper, or free, ride. That’s a Right. An entitlement to be left with what is yours, to be able to sell it for as good a price as can be obtained, no matter how many voters may want it from you for less. How can the property rights of an owner matter less than the desire of others to possess? That’s the creed of the thief. If you want free internet, buy up shares of the owner companies, and then give away your product.
Finally, as a footnote to this topic, and ironic as it may seem, if you desire a peaceful and prosperous world, you should advocate greater business and financial integration with the people outside our borders. No one goes to war with business partners: they may have arguments, to be sure, but they respect property and do not generally crave its destruction. The more people work with one another, the better they come to understand and accept , and indeed, like them; the more they do business with one another, the less they fear a kirpan, bindi, kimono, burqa, yarmulke, lederhosen or bagpipes, and the more they relish their differences and diversity as one of the most profound delights of our species. Capitalism, the free movement of goods and labour, with respect for property rights: that’s in the world’s best interests.