Montreal, September 29, 2001  /  No 89  
<< page précédente 
Scott Carpenter is a freelance writer who lives, works and plays in Dawson Creek, BC.
by Scott Carpenter
          When politicians start talking about sharing I get nervous. Not because sharing is necessarily a bad thing but because our Liberal ruling class and the leeches who feed off their slime trail don't have a clue about what the word actually means. For most of us, sharing means a « volountary » and charitable donation meant to give our fellow man a hand up in a tough situation but for the Liberals, « sharing » is done at the point of a gun and at the cost of human life.
Us and Them 
          Sharing – according to Mr. Chrétien – is equal to nothing more than the socialist redistribution of wealth (redistribution is his word, not mine). Indeed, if there were any doubts as to where the Liberals sit on the political spectrum, then Mr. Chrétien's recent speech to a group of businessmen in Edmonton regarding Alberta's prosperity and wealth should have cleared the air: 
          « We have to keep in mind that this country has been built because we have been able to share in this nation. We have to make sure that every person in every part of Canada benefits from the potential and the wealth that belongs to the people of Canada. »
          That's an interesting concept there, comrade Jean. So does that mean I'm entitled to a portion of the profits of your private golf course (oh, wait, what golf course?) because the property it occupies is a part of the « land » which is a « living resource » all Canadians have in common? When do I get my cheque? 
          Sorry Jean, just buggin' ya! 
          No, I suspect that even good old Teflon Jean doesn't believe the crap coming from his own mouth. I suspect his financial portfolio would make a libertarian green with envy – if only it were built through legitimate and fair trade practices, i.e., non coercively.  
     « Sharing – according to Mr. Chrétien – is equal to nothing more than the socialist redistribution of wealth. So does that mean I'm entitled to a portion of the profits of your private golf course (oh, wait, what golf course?) »
          Of course, I'm not suggesting that Jean has ever used his position as Prime Minister to further his own financial ends – that would be unethical. I wonder though if Mr. Chrétien – who recently lamented to the nation that he and the rest of the parasites on the hill were in such dire need of a raise – has motives other than sharing? I wonder if maybe it has more to do with power and taking money that doesn't belong to him through the use of the government's ability to legislate new and interesting laws? I wonder if it has to do with making sure that friends who need « important positions » will get them and that new money elsewhere doesn't become a threat to old money taken the old fashioned way: by force?  
          All of this from a political party who supports, endorses and enforces mandatory gun registration. Is it just me or am I seeing a dangerous pattern emerging here? 
          Well... it's just a theory. 
Political courage? 
          Fortunately Chrétien's inability to deliver his proposal with real statist fervor and passion may yet be the whole idea's undoing. Even collectivist pundits have dared to criticize Jean's plan. 
          An editorial lambasting Chrétien in the leftist Toronto Star gives Chrétien kudos for « bringing the debate into the open, » but criticizes him for not having a concrete plan to put into place. States the article: « It took political courage to stand in front of an audience of Edmonton business leaders and defend the principle of inter-regional assistance.... But a principle needs to be backed up with a coherent plan. And Chrétien had none. » 
          For you American readers inter-regional assistance is Canadian for regional welfare. It's wealth redistribution which has two purposes: first it destroys the prosperity in an active and more laissez faire region of the country and second it keeps those in unproductive regions at home and dependent on government handouts. Supposedly, it prevents something the Liberals like to call « dislocation » or in plain English: moving to find work. Ultimately, the end result in both places is subservience before the state. 
          The plan gives me, as one Edmonton businessman so aptly put it, « shivers up my spine. » 
          And at a time when the country is more fractured politically than ever before Chrétien and his ilk would do well to start treading a bit more softly. When the « respectable » mainstream press starts talking about things like « secession » as though they were inevitable – as Ted Byfield did in a recent Edmonton Sun column – then you know the crapola is close to hitting the fan. 
          Yep. Canadians are slowly waking up to reality. Socialism sucks. Capitalism rules and dislocation is something that happens to your arm, not to people. 
Previous articles by Scott Carpenter
<< retour au sommaire