I had a long conversation with the local Conservative Party candidate for my riding, this morning. I’m kind of disappointed. I’m really not sure who will get my support, if anyone, in this riding.
I’d certainly like to see the Liberals gone. But, there’s a bit of a conundrum locally. As much as I think the Liberal M.P.’s executive assistant is sometimes a bit illogical, I get the idea that Murray Calder himself is someone who would like to see more fiscal responsibility. To give him some credit, he was an opponent of the Gun Registry, and in some of his official replies to letters I’ve received from him, he’s seemed like someone who shares classical liberal ideas in many ways.
But, that’s not really enough. So, David Tilson is the Conservative candidate. And philosophically, I don’t think there’s a huge difference between him and the Liberal party in general. He even described himself to me as a “red tory.” So, what’s the point?
It seems to me that if we elect Tilson, all we’re doing, at least locally anyhow, is remove one partial socialist for another partial socialist.
It’s kind of depressing actually. Sure, Tilson said all the right things, like “less Government is better,” “the adscam scandal shows a disrespect for taxpayers…” and so on. He supports ditching the Gun Registry in lieu of tougher laws and sentencing.
But I think he misses the point. On Health Care, it’s the same old same old. Our health care problems are all the fault of the Liberal Government and their financing levels, according to Tilson. He suggested we come up with different ideas on how to administer Health Care, such as limiting free check ups to every two years, doctor sharing which would mean you’d never really have a single doctor looking after you; instead, you’d just get whoever was available.
He didn’t seem to understand that the root cause of the problem is Government intervention in the first place. He didn’t seem willing to even consider a two tier system of any sort. And his comments about ‘Government Funding’ again are typical of all politicians.
Here’s an idea: Instead of talking about Goverment funding, let’s talk about tax payer funding. Next time someone says, “The Government should pay for this,” switch it around. Say something like, “which tax payers do you want take the money from so you can have this program?”
They just don’t seem to get it. Regardless of whether or not the feds are transferring funds – the funds still come from the same source, and that’s working folks paying their taxes.
Tilson also made a crazy, sweeping generalization about libertarians, to the effect, “they don’t want any kind of government and that would be anarchy.”
Well… that’s not totally true. And even if it were true, that kind of statement comes from a very uneducated premise about human beings. It says, “human beings cannot solve their problems without having regulation.” It comes from a mythical belief that the only thing stopping us all from running rampant through the streets, murdering each other, robbing each other, and creating total mayhem, is law.
And I don’t buy that. But that’s besides the point. Tilson, philosophically, doesn’t seem that much different than a whole lot of Liberal MP’s.
And that’s depressing that the only vote our riding constituents have really is between a Blue Liberal and a Red Tory.
I’m not from Canada so I might be missing something. But I can say that any politician that describes himself as a “red tory” and is fundamentally opposed to libertarian political philosophy to the point bringing out the “that would be anarchy” red herring as if that settled the matter should not be voted for. (Yeah, I know the grammar in that sentence was terrible.) I recommend voting for a Libertarian Party of Canada candidate if you got one locally. Otherwise, if that Tilson fellow is the incumbent vote for the other guy. If the Liberal is the incumbent, write-in “None of the Above”. Because of the number of uncontested elections where I live (in Georgia), I write-in “None of the Above” quite often. It’s actually quite liberating. 😉
This is always a difficult issue for Libertarians. I think there is a reasonable case to be made for voting for the leader of the party as opposed to particular candidates. I’ve said before I’ll vote for Harper even if some of the Conservative platform is anti-libertarian. On the other hand, I could vote strategically in my riding for whoever has the best chance of knocking off the ruling Liberals even if that means voting for (gack) the NDP. If the choice appears on my ballot, I may vote for the Freedom Party as I did in the last provincial election.
Thanks for your suggestion, Bill. Spoiling a ballot is something that I know a few do. I’m still not sure what I will be doing. The Libertarian Party in Canada doesn’t seem to be doing very much, but there is another party that I hope will become better known – the Freedom Party of Canada. The leader of that party has done quite a bit to promote their policies which are Libertarian in nature. I’m hoping to find out if there are any FPC people in my locality.
Jay: Voting for Harper is a possibility and one I’ll consider, instead of voting based upon the local candidates. The problem with this is philosophical but I suppose reality dictates that I’ll have to think hard about this. Originally, our system was supposed to be one of representation by population – in other words, my MP was to represent me (or at least the majority of their constituents). Voting for someone that will not represent me is a tough one. But I suppose that is just another indication of our politics in Canada. I was hoping to be able to actually work for someone and help them defeat the Liberals in the election. I don’t think I can actively help Tilson though. Your point is well taken though.