EDITORIAL : THE NATIONAL POST, CANADA

 

The Libertarian party: Smaller government, more freedom

In the din of an election campaign, it's hard for so-called fringe parties to make their voice heard. This week, the National Post gives smaller parties the chance to tell you what they're all about -and why you might consider giving them your vote.

Most people, most of the time, know best how to manage their own lives. This may be intuitively obvious to many Canadians - and to the Libertarian Party of Canada - but apparently escapes many other political parties. Year after year, especially if there is an election, those other parties enter a bidding war, offering more and larger programs in exchange for your votes, programs that seek to manage your lives, often with unintended consequences and few net benefits.

The Libertarian approach is different. We do not promise to endlessly expand spending and impose new restrictions on personal action. Our goal is to leave Canadians as much responsibility for their lives as possible. Given the challenge of taming the leviathan of big government, we aim to return control to the individual as fast as practicable with the least dislocation to society. We are not anarchists, as some label us, but we do propose that much of what is currently done by government does not -or should not -be done only by government. The Libertarian platform includes:

Ending the war on drugs Current drug enforcement policies have cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The Harper government's recent expansion of that war, with the support of the Liberals, will damage the lives of even more people. If drug dependency were treated as a personal medical problem, for those suffering from excessive drug use, there would be far less harm to society. The only role of the government with respect to drug use would be regulating against fraud.

Ending war, in general NATO, as with our military, should be used only for defence from attack. We would limit participation in NATO to our original mandate as written, not as perverted by those who use it to support the invasion of other countries. Aging military equipment would be replaced as needed but only with equipment designed for the defence of Canada, not with fighter jets intended for offensive use in other countries.

Full choice at the ballot box Democracy is the best way to choose representation, but sometimes the ballot offers no real choice. Voter participation declines as the distinctions between the major parties diminish. We would add "None of the Above" to the ballot at all federal elections. NOTA would be listed alongside the names of other candidates on the ballot, so voters would have a real choice even if candidates and their parties failed to meet your standards. NOTA votes would be recorded and reported as a vote so there would be no confusion as to Canadians' intentions, as there is now with a spoiled ballot.

Legal reform It is not possible to move to a more libertarian society without improving the most basic libertarian documents, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so they offer true legal protection from excessive government. A Libertarian government would open negotiations with the provinces to add property rights and other limits on the powers of government with the aim of ratifying these changes with a binding referendum of the people by late in the mandate.

10-for-4 Our bottom line spending cuts average 10% annually, for each of the next four years. Last year $57-billion was transferred to other levels of government, an increase of $16-billion in just five years. We would reduce these transfers by 25% each year with the plan to eliminate most transfers in the second mandate. Taxes would decline proportionately after the deficit is eliminated in the first year. We would replace the current maze of complex tax breaks and special favours with a single flat tax. The people who support endless expansion of government may decry this reduction as too rapid, but it would only roll spending levels back to those of 2004, after four years. The second mandate will continue this reduction trend.

It is far too risky to continue down our current path of big spending, big government, and excessive regulation. Canada came through the recession far better than many countries, due to spending reductions that produced a surplus to buffer us against tough times, but that buffer has been squandered by the Harper government and their coalition of big government supporters in the other three major parties. It is time not only to turn the ship of state around, but to shrink it, if we are to ensure the prosperity of future generations. For that and the other reasons listed above, we ask that you please support the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Profits -and people

In the past decade, both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have sharply cut corporate income tax rates. Canada is currently still committed to reducing the federal rate by a further 1.5 points, to 15%. The provinces have taken action as well: Manitoba has completely eliminated taxes on small businesses, while British Colombia has announced that it will follow suit next year. Yet the debate over further reductions has become a centerpiece of the current federal election campaign.

Opponents of corporate tax cuts base their arguments on a biased view of corporate decision making. Politicians and social activists claim that we must choose between "profits or people." That view fails to appreciate that companies make decisions in the same way as their very "human" analogues: individual entrepreneurs. Every shift in the balance of risk and reward subtly changes the investment climate that shapes economic activity.

How would the owner of a local convenience store respond to a sudden reduction in property taxes? She most likely would not immediately increase employee hours, but might reduce prices on certain items to attract new clientele. He might decide to spend money on a family vacation overseas, repave the shop parking lot, or sock additional profits away to finance expansion into the space next door. These very human responses have obvious economic consequences, even on a small scale.

Corporations respond in precisely the same manner. Lower taxes may trigger price reductions if management is anxious to improve competitiveness. If a business boosts dividends, individual and institutional shareholders will experience increased cash flow. Companies could end up "spending" tax savings on acquisitions (possibly abroad-just like our convenience store owner's foreign holiday) but they would do so on the expectation of improved future earnings, flowing back to Canada.

Will reduced corporate taxes result in an immediate increase in investment and jobs? No. When markets are stressed, corporations are not likely to rush into new investments, expand output and hire new employees. But when market opportunities present themselves, lower taxes will spark employment gains -if not immediately, certainly over the longer term.

Important as tax levels are, they remain a relatively minor component of the investment equation. But there is no doubt that a favourable tax environment constitutes a crucial advantage for Canadian business. Rather than attempt to reverse the move towards lower taxation, good policy recommends further reductions-and even the elimination of corporate income taxes entirely.

Politicians who pit the interests of the public against supposedly faceless corporate entities perform a great disservice. Collectively we are all components of the economy-whether as employees, consumers or producers. We all directly or indirectly depend on a profitable private sector. Our private and public pension plans rely heavily on dividend and capital gains incomes generated by corporations and banks. Solid returns on our savings and insurance plans are only possible so long as the corporate sector remains strong. Finally, one of the largest labour pools in the country is employed in the financial sector itself, spending millions of dollars in the local economy, and paying millions more in income taxes.

It is time to give low-tax policies their due, and stop trying to bite the hand that feeds us. In the words of former Prime Minister Paul Martin "Do you want to tie Canada's hands behind its back? Then increase corporate income taxes."

The power of Iron Dome

We are guessing that most Palestinians are not enthusiastic supporters of Israel's world-leading armaments industry. Yet a recent triumph of Israeli engineering may do much to help save Palestinian lives.
Till now, Israel's only means of defending itself against rocket and missile fire from the Gaza Strip was through invasion or air strikes -which, like all forms of combat, inevitably poses risks to local civilians caught in the crossfire.
But the situation suddenly has changed.
This week, terrorists inside the Gaza Strip fired a pair of missiles at the Israeli city of Ashkelon. The missiles never made it. They were intercepted by Israel's new missile-defence system, Iron Dome, which tracked the incoming projectiles and destroyed them both in the air. This is the first successful battlefield use of a system that's been in development for four years, and marks the first occasion in history that a shortrange missile has been successfully negated before reaching its target during actual combat.
Of course, no weapon system -however advanced -can permanently protect Israel. Given its indiscriminate blood-lust, Hamas will find other ways to kill Israeli civilians: The fact that Islamist terrorists recently fired an anti-tank weapon at an Israeli school bus shows that they really don't care who they kill -as long as the victims are Jewish. Moreover, Israel, like every nation on earth, has the right to respond militarily to a neighbour that lobs missiles across the border -even if the missiles are intercepted and do no damage.
But at the very least, Iron Dome lessens the chance that a Palestinian missile will land in a major Israeli population centre and kill a large number of Israelis -which almost certainly would precipitate a quick, and bloody, Israeli incursion into Gaza. Once refined, the technology also presents Israel with a chance to lessen the threat from Hezbollah's more extensive missile inventory on the country's northern border.
Iron Dome will not protect Israel from war. But when war comes, it is more likely to be waged on Israel's terms.

 

Justice for Lawrence Manzer

In June 2010,a young man torched the Royal Canadian Legion Hall in the small New Brunswick town of Oromocto. On March 3, 2011, Wayne Heighton, 18, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of mischief. In exchange, the Crown prosecutor withdrew charges of arson. Mr. Heighton faces sentencing in June of this year.

Mr. Heighton's lenient treatment contrasts sharply with that meted out to another local resident: Lawrence Manzer. A year ago, Mr. Manzer was arrested and charged after assisting a neighbour who had discovered three intruders on his property in the middle of the night. Mr. Manzer helped his neighbour detain the three drunk teenagers who were prowling the neighbourhood (which had suffered a string of vandalism and property crimes that the local police had shown little interest in addressing). When confronting the intruders, Mr. Manzer carried an unloaded shotgun. For that, he also has a date with Crown prosecutor Paul Hawkins, to face charges of possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace.

Together with the man who burned down the Legion Hall, the teenagers caught a lucky break: they were merely ticketed for underage drinking. Meanwhile Mr. Manzer, who served his country in the Canadian Forces for years, is taking donations for his legal bills.

It's a small world in New Brunswick, apparently. The Legion Hall was a place where Mr. Manzer used to spend time with fellow veterans. It was a hub for the community, a place where people could celebrate birthdays, get together for a coffee or have a beer with some military friends. Mr. Manzer volunteered there, investing his own time to keep the place in good repair. With the building totally destroyed and a new one not set to be completed until the fall, Mr. Manzer reports that the veterans, many of them of very advanced age, have continued to meet regularly at the home of one of the men, a 78-yearold who fought in Korea 60 years ago. Losing one of the centres of their social lives, as well as a place of mutual support, has been severely distressing for these men.

It is a travesty that Mr. Manzer faces trial for helping his neighbour while holding an unloaded gun, while the intruders he confronted received a slap on the wrist. And it adds insult to injury that another young criminal could burn down a community hall at the heart of the local military community, and yet have the serious charge against him dropped.