Montréal,  22 janvier 2000  /  No 54
 
 
<< page précédente 
 
 
 
 
ÉCRIVEZ-NOUS
  
     Vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec le contenu d'un article? Vous avez une opinion à partager?
 
     LE QUÉBÉCOIS LIBRE publiera toutes les lettres pertinentes. N'oubliez pas d'écrire vos nom et lieu de résidence. We also accept letters in English.
 
COURRIER DES LECTEURS
  
ÉCONOMIE VS PROGRÈS SOCIAL
  
  
          Aujourd'hui, l'économie ne coïncide plus avec le progrès social. Elle agit contre la société. Nous sommes actuellement dans une logique économique qui prétend être incontestable. Tout se passe comme s'il était naturel que l'économie régisse l'ensemble de la société. Il faut sortir au plus vite de cette logique. Certaines baudruches doivent être dégonflées. Entre autre, celle qui voudrait que l'ensemble de la population profite de la compétitivité internationale.  

          Il s'avère de plus en plus évident que la logique économique tourne au profit d'une mince couche de la population et cela se fait au dépend et au détriment d'une grande partie de celle-ci. Il faut vraiment un retournement de situation. Il faut en finir avec l'idée que seul l'ultra-libéralisme est porteur de progrès et cesser de nous dire que la loi naturelle, c'est la loi de l'économie.  

          Pour ce faire, il faudra avoir un projet politique qui permettra de réconcilier l'économie et la société. Les règles économiques devront s'ajuster à ce projet. Et non l'inverse, comme présentement. Bref, il faudra passer d'une société où l'économie joue un rôle central et où le travail professionnel est le seul moyen d'intégration, à une société où l'économie jouerait un rôle moindre.  
 

Jean-Baptiste Carrier
 
Réponse de Martin Masse: 
 
Bonjour Monsieur Carrier,  

          L'économie n'est pas un phénomène distinct de notre vie, c'est simplement le résultat de l'activité de chacun des individus dans une société. En substituant un projet politique (c'est-à-dire, un projet collectiviste imposé par l'État, puisque c'est toujours de cela qu'il s'agit) à la logique de l'économie de marché, on fait simplement en sorte de donner préséance, par des lois et des impôts, aux décisions économiques d'une minorité qui contrôle l'État sur celles de l'ensemble de la population. En quoi les choix économiques des politiciens, des bureaucrates et des parasites qui dépendent d'eux sont-ils plus valables que ceux que chacun d'entre nous peut faire librement?  

          Il y a un moyen bien simple de sortir de cette « logique économique » comme vous écrivez: arrêtez de travailler, de produire et de consommer. Vous pourrez alors passer tout votre temps à défendre des « projets de société » tout aussi progressistes les uns que les autres – si vous pouvez survivre. En effet, je vois mal comment vous pourrez alors vous nourrir, vous vêtir et vous loger, ou encore communiquer par internet, sans avoir à dépendre de l'activité économique des autres.  

          Vous comprenez, j'en suis sûr, qu'on ne peut échapper aux lois de la physique: il faut se nourrir pour survivre, parce que notre corps dépense de l'énergie et doit se renouveler. De la même façon, on ne peut pas sortir de la logique économique: ce qu'on consomme, il faut le produire. Il n'y a pas de progrès social possible à moins de se réconcilier avec cette réalité.  

Bien à vous,  

M. M. 
  
  


 
PROPHÉTIQUE LE QL
  
  
          L'article de Monsieur Gilles Guénette (voir LA FIN DU PROTECTIONNISME CULTUREL, le QL, no 53) a acquis un petit côté prophétique avec l'annonce de la fusion entre Time Warner et America Online inc... 
 
Marc Pinsonneault
Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu
 
 
 
 LIBERTARIANS SHADOWED BY 
THE ULTRA RIGHT-WING 
  
  
          As a frequent and regular visitor to the Québécois Libre website, I will be the first to state that one need not be a « libertarian » (either by design or accidentally) to enjoy reading your columns.  
   
          I have been wondering, for quite some time now, where on the « political line chart » one would find a « true libertarian ». This remained a quasi-mystery to me until I read the latest issue of the Québécois Libre. Contained in the 13 web pages of the January 8 issue are more contradictions and bold statements than in the sum of all other issues before it.  
   
          For instance, one of your regular columnists, Ralph Maddocks, whom I'll concede is the most convincing libertarian person, whose words I've ever had the opportunity of reading, writes about the genetically modified food agribusiness (voir GM DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN GENERAL MOTORS, le QL, no 53). My impression is that Mr. Maddocks' article-ending conclusions, although similar to my own, were written somewhat sheepishly. I can only assume that his concern, about genetic modification needing to be curbed, somewhat tramples all over his basic libertarian beliefs of discouraging MORE government interference and regulating instead of the opposite.  
  
          In the same issue, a regular feature called Mot pour Mot sings the praises of one Garry Breitkreuz, a Reform MP (Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan) whose only « cause célèbre » seems to be the hopeful defeat of bill C-68 (voir TOUT APPARTIENT AU GOUVERNEMENT, le QL, no 53). I'm no fan of the Liberals either but some gun control is better than unfettered lawlessness. The writer of Mot pour Mot has obviously NOT read another article in the same issue of the Québécois Libre written by your own website's editor, Martin Masse who discusses the « Five Essential Libertarian Attitudes » (voir CINQ ATTITUDES LIBERTARIENNES ESSENTIELLES, le QL, no 53).  
  
          Basically, these five attitudes lend themselves to good everyday living to anyone, whether Libertarian-natured or not. I do, however, point out to the writer of the Mot pour Mot column focusing on Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz, that he/she failed to hold up Mr. Masse's column against the typical Reform Party of Canada mindset. In fact, I'd say there's a most blatant contrast (almost black to white) between the Reform Party and « essential libertarian attitude » at number 5 on Mr. Masse's list which (translated) reads: « To be TOLERANT and accept DIVERSITY ».  
  
          That certainly doesn't sound too much like any Reform Party member I know. Wasn't it they who've been allegedly linked to Right-to-Lifers, ultra-religious fundamentalists and western Canadian White Supremacy groups? Wasn't it one or more Reform Party stalwarts who have made disparaging and bigoted remarks about gays and people of other nationalities residing in Canada? There is precious little room for any TOLERANCE or acceptance of any DIVERSITY within that party... or so their record shows.  
  
          My personal opinion of Mr. Breitkreuz's « holy crusade » against firearm legislation in Canada is that it merely reflects his party's « Old West » / gun totin' / far right-wing attitude. It has NOTHING to do with the pursuit and defence of the electorate's right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. The Reform Party (or even the struggling « United Alternative » concept) is as far right as you can get on the Canadian political spectrum. They occupy that spot on the spectrum with great pride but the libertarian-minded reader MUST recognize that a government composed of legislators from the « far right » would end up instituting far more government regulations and rules of conduct (some along spiritual lines!!!) than would any other ruling party.  
  
          My concluding comments involve the blending of this letter's original gist (where the Québécois Libre seems to fit within the Canadian political spectrum) and this same (again) issue's column by Yvan Petitclerc entitled « Renouveau médiatique à droite » (voir le QL, no 53).  
   
          Mr. Petitclerc's contribution to this issue of QL made my blood boil. His particular column sings the praises of the National Post and it's meteoric rise to becoming an almost equal to the Globe & Mail. Well, « Hail to ultra-greedy capitalists, I say » (sarcastically)... The National Post is the creation of that most notorious of greedy Canadian capitalists, Mr. Conrad Black, whose repeated failed attempts at purchasing the Globe & Mail (thereby controlling almost every single printed media outlet in all of Canada) have engendered the creation of the « Southam Syndicate Flagship Newspaper » in order to compete most directly with that which Black CANNOT buy. Talk about your expensive temper tantrums!!!  
  
          The closing paragraph in Mr. Petitclerc's column is the one which helped me reach my conclusion about where a « true libertarian » sits in the political spectrum of Canada. He writes (translated from French): « In this day and age, it is the right-wing news publications that inform and are fun to read. » I'm assuming, therefore, that he has qualified the National Post as a right-wing newspaper. Interesting observation and even more disturbing in light of everything else I've observed in the current issue of QL and discussed in this letter.  
  
          My conclusion, therefore, is that the « stereotypical Canadian libertarian » sits squarely on the lap of a full blown « right-winger ». If, as the Québécois Libre states, the libertarian movement is growing rapidly in Canada, it is being shadowed by the ultra right-wing faction. Much like lambs running innocently along a path in the forest but with vicious and stealthy wolves running alongside them hidden by the underbrush, if not curbed, both of these would reach out and unscrupulously maim, kill and then devour anything or anyone it their path.  
  
          They say that politicians make strange bedfellows but a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian « sleeping » with a right-wing Reformer... I'm shuddering at the mental image my mind has conjured up of the fruit of their loins!!!   
  
Peter McCrindle
Pointe-Claire
  
Réponse de Martin Masse: 
  
Hello Mr McCrindle,  
 
          There may be fewer contradictions than you perceive in the libertarian positions defended here. First, I am the one who wrote the introduction to the Mot pour Mot column about Mr. Breitkreuz's bill, and I certainly don't believe that was in blatant contrast with my own editorial calling for tolerance and diversity. Individual property rights are the very foundation of a free market and a free society, and the Reform position on this issue is totally consistent with the libertarian philosophy. 
  
          As well, what you call Mr. Breitkreuz's « holy crusade » against gun control is another crucial issue if we want to ensure that the state and its repressive agencies (police, army, secret service) do not have a monopoly on the use of force, with the whole population at their mercy. The first concern of all repressive regimes and dictatorships in history has been to disarm their citizens. Having a free access to guns does not lead to « unfettered lawlessness » as you write, but rather ensures that fewer crimes are committed and that individual freedom is better protected (you can read my editorial  LITTLETON, LES ARMES ET LA CIVILISATION, le QL no 36, if you want more detailed arguments on this).  
  
          More than that, as you can read in biographical notes on my page, I worked for two years at the regional office of the Reform Party in Montreal and was a Reform candidate in a by-election in 1996 (I am no longer involved in politics). I have to take exception to your description of the Reform Party as being on the far right and linked with white supremacist groups. You obviously have been taken in by all the disinformation and propaganda that the left-wing and politically correct media have been spewing for years about this party. There was one incident where a white supremacist in Ontario tried to infiltrate the party and was expelled. Period.  
  
          Like many other parties on the right, Reform is a coalition between libertarians, conservatives and populists with various causes (including anti-bilingualism in the West). I do not agree with everything it stands for, nor with comments made by some MPs. But the main thing is that Reform (or its possible successor) are promising to reduce state intervention, reduce spending and taxes, enshrine property rights in the constitution, and generally guarantee more individual freedom for all Canadians. Despite its failings, – and I agree with you that the goal of many conservatives is to institute more regulations of our private life according to their own beliefs – this is consistent with a libertarian position, inasmuch as one is willing to make compromises in the political arena. It is a strategy I have decided not to pursue anymore, opting to disseminate libertarian ideas in this magazine instead, but it is one that I respect.  
  
          As for the National Post, well, I beg to differ here too. This « greedy capitalist » Conrad Black has created one of the best daily papers in the world, probably the one with the most libertarian-leaning content in it, and as such I believe he is one of the great benefactors of this society. Of course, he controls far too many media outlets in this country, but this is because some stupid law prevents foreigners from buying Canadian papers. Remove that protectionist regulation, and competition will likely increase. Again, the problem is with the government preventing things from happening, not with entrepreneurs creating things.  
  
          Yours,  

M. M.
 
<< retour au sommaire
PRÉSENT NUMÉRO