Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

It is difficult to reform and limit big government. The entire concept of modern governance is to buy off as many groups as possible and ensure societal peace through massive state funded programs. This ‘statism’ is as much a threat to the maintenance and improvement of our lives as is the jihadist warring of immoderate Islam. State government exists to further its own power, responsibility and relevance. To get elected the easy path is to avoid debate, conflict and the clash of ideas and simply bribe, spend and smile your way to election. The unremarkable and unheroic nature of most democratically based politics is anathema to change, improvement and ‘great deeds’. Yet at times in history we need great deeds and great sweeping change. Now is such a time in Canada and the US.

In both lands government is simply too large and this massive dislocation ensures that society is poorer on many levels. The poverty takes many forms. At its core national-socialist statism rejects the Western enlightenment tradition. The basic core premise of big government is that people are stupid and incapable. By default wise masters must set up countless ‘national’ programs to train, coerce, conduct and manage the populations. This disdain for the average person is further refracted for ‘minorities’ and various rights groups. According to current political orthodoxy these minorities – blacks, gays, Chinese, Muslims, French etc. – are not only naturally inept but also disadvantaged by historical processes. From this premise it follows to reason that more statist programs are needed to cater to their unique minority group circumstances. In order to divide society up into buyable voter blocs governments create certain ‘Rights’ based documents. This gives rise to an entire legal industry whose job is to further define and refine government power to protect rights, including the rights of various groups to access ‘national’ programs. As the cycle of government and legal interventionism proceeds, society and citizens lose all touch with reality; the traditions that allowed the West to dominate the planet; and inevitably trade, education, the media and political party systems fall prey to national-socialism.

Canada is far gone in regards to the national-socialist program but the threat in the US is also real and vibrant. In Canada for example just ‘national’ programs such as health; Indian affairs; equalization payments [welfare to poorer regions]; pensions, and social services now comprise 35 % of the total GDP. In the US such statist programs now comprise about 22 % of the US’ GDP. Once you add in unionized government workers; managed trade; managed lumber, agricultural and fishing industries; and the myriad other programs of big statism, the reforming Conservative is suddenly met with a set of impassable obstacles. The true Conservative reformer will be viciously attacked by a multitude of lobby and interest groups, the media, and the petty defiances of bureaucrats and union leaders who want to expand their power at the expense of taxpayers. The inexorable rise of something like Sweden – where 57 % of the GDP is under government control – should horrify anyone who believes in liberty, responsibility and the accumulation of private assets.

It is for these reasons that national socialist elections turn on incredibly left wing concepts and judicial activism. ‘National’ medicare; day care; environmental care; Indian care; and other various ‘guarantees’ demands demagogic politics that would make a lying 2nd century BC Roman Senator blush. Judicial activism is used as a cover to implement programs of more government power such as stealing private land [called Green belt acts or ‘eminent domain’ takeovers]; eradicating non-state institutions such as marriage; or pushing through radical social reforms that would fail a simple referendum test. In order to enshrine such government power and arbitrary legal coercion various ‘Rights’ documents are invented.

These rights documents are based on the US ‘Bill of Rights’ but they are of course nothing like the US Bill of Rights which is sort, succinct and very clear. The BoR for instance in its last amendment states; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This clearly delimits the role of government and ensures that the US Constitution is primary in the division of state vs. non – state powers. Contrast this delineation with Canada’s 1982 ‘Charter of Rights’: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” [15:1] This statement was however already long codified in law. Why then do we need to create vague documents that only muddy the waters of the legal system?

In Canadian, European and American law the right to justice without regards to race, creed or minority status was long enshrined. Whereas the Americans focus on limiting government power and protect private property, the Canadians focus on using government power to promote minority group interest and ignore the protection of private property rights. For example the use of the above subsection has been a cornerstone of Indian, Gay, Feminist, Pay-equity and other activist minority group rights. No where in the Canadian charter are property rights protected nor are vague terms such as ‘discrimination’ defined. This allows hordes of legal speculators to sue businesses and governments under every possible scenario declaring an abuse of the Charter.

As you would expect in a national – socialist state a concept like the Charter is not even debated nor voted upon. Canadians were never asked to vote on the 1982 document and I daresay 98 % of Canadians have never read even a small part of the Charter. Yet in national statist politics the tired refrain of ‘love the Charter’ comes up. Politicians and the lobby group-legal nexus of course love such concepts. The more Charters and badly worded documents and laws there are the more money lawyers can make and the more power that politicians can accumulate. The fact that most political systems in the West are run by lawyers is more than a little ironic and convenient.

So the reforming zealot will have a great deal of difficulty in overcoming the well financed inertia that exists to expand the role of government. Chopping down the tree of government power will take more than a bewigged and smiling George Washington. It will take a power bloc as ruthless, well-financed, fanatical and as cunning as those now in charge. There is little evidence that the Conservatives in Canada, Britain or in Europe has any preferences for non-statist politics. The Bush Republicans in the US have proven themselves the biggest spenders in US political history [even as net worth has doubled to $51 Trillion, something that cannot be said of Canada]. The US needs some real Conservatives who have deleted the ‘Compassionate’ label and who are intent on restoring the balance of power between state and citizens away from the state.

The onward march of government power is under no threat from Globalization, free markets or neo-American imperialism. The very opposite is of course occurring. In the US about 25 % of the economy is dependent on imports and exports. In Canada about 40 %, in Holland about 45 %, in Germany about 40 % and in Australia for example about 30% of the GDP are imports plus exports. This gives government in all these lands more money [expanding economies] and vast scope to regulate, placate and introduce national programs that are ‘values’ and which protect such values from outside inimical forces [the Americans; global warming; globalization etc.].

A true reforming Conservative will have to challenge the ‘rights’ based culture; limit the size of government through tax and spending cuts; and reform so-called national values and national programs to conform to the Western enlightenment tradition. If we don’t do the above then our society and future are at risk.