Government: When Reach Exceeds Grasp

It rained last night in Greater Vancouver. It rained a lot. Not exactly headline news for this time of year, but it got me thinking about, of all things, the proper role of government in our lives. This is a subject of much debate now, as it was 2500 years ago. My thinking on the subject has evolved, particularly after spending seventeen years working for the federal government. I got a front row seat, not only for what governments can and should do, but also for what they are terrible at.

These days, seeking to slip the yawning left/right divide, I call myself a “Limited Libertarian.” I am “Limited,” inasmuch as my license plates are not made of cardboard, nor do I respond to any inquiry from a policeman with “Talk to my lawyer.” I render under to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s.

I guess I’d sum up my beliefs thusly: I only want the state to intervene when the conduct of others poses some threat to my, and my family’s existence and liberty. I only want the state to intervene when they can make things better, not worse. And I only want the state to take something over when they can do it better than private industry.

Should we outsource our military to Blackwater? Er, no, I think the government can actually fight and win wars. They’ve proven that much. How about licensing cars, and guns? Yes, okay, there would seem to be valid reasons for keeping track of who gets ahold of dangerous things like Dodge Rams and AR-15s.

This informs my views on personal liberties to a great extent. I stopped opposing marihuana legalization when I realized that the harm we were preventing wasn’t being prevented anyway; the fact that marihuana was illegal simply reduced respect for the law in general. I supported gay marriage when I asked myself the question, “Does the government have the right to tell you who to love?” Despite my abhorrence for abortion, particularly the grisly, late-term variety, I am pro-choice. Why? Because back-alley abortionists often produce two corpses instead of one.

In short, the government exists to do some things on behalf of us all. That does not mean it should do all things on our behalf. I think it’s timely to point this out, given the recent resurgence in enthusiasm for left-wing politics. Which brings me back to the rain.

In the early 1970’s, British Columbia’s socialist government decided that motor vehicle regulation and insurance should be controlled by the same Crown Corporation. Thus was born the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. ICBC, or as we often call it “Icky-Bicky,” has been keeping the cost of driving in BC high ever since. They’re not especially known for their fairness or probity, you see. And, like many corporations, they love to hand out big, fat pay-packets to the people at the top. While the rest, even those who’ve gone decades without an accident, see their premiums rise, year after year.

Recently, today’s version of BC’s socialist government, in the form of David Eby, the Attorney General, announced that they’d be doing something about ICBC. They were going to form an oversight office. Eby, you see, is a big fan of creating expensive new bureaucracies in order to tell other expensive bureaucracies what to do. He’s the man behind the Independent Investigations Office, a mind-numbingly expensive bunch of non-cops who investigate cops who dare to do their jobs. At a glacial pace. I’ll say one thing for the IIO, they certainly keep a lot of cops inside their cars, where it’s nice and warm.

Yet doctors still kill a hundred times more people. And get to investigate themselves. But I digress.

I thought about Eby and his ICBC oversight when I was driving home last night in the rain. It was a nasty downpour, and I quickly got off the main highway to avoid the people determined to drive even more like assholes on account of the weather. I found myself on a subsidiary, yet still main route into Central Surrey. Now the Romans had figured out how to build roads with sloping drainage as far back as 50 BC, but that knowledge appears not to have made it that far west yet. This section of road was filled with massive, water-filled depressions. Passing vehicles left tsunamis on my windshield, and, being that this road is almost completely unlit (save the planet), it was hard to see where the lakes were. I almost lost control twice.

See, here’s the thing: Building and maintaining roads has been a government job since Caesar took his legions over the Alps. That government did that job quite well. Their roads are still usable today. I don’t give that Surrey road more than 18 months. To call it “useable” now is a bit of a stretch.

But since when did selling car insurance become a government job? Is this something only governments can do? Clearly, it isn’t, as almost nobody else gets their government to do this. And if this government can’t maintain a road, which is clearly one of their central missions, why should we trust them to expand their powers further? Is the answer really yet another bureaucracy to oversee a mission BCAA or State Farm can, and should be doing?

From a Libertarian perspective, the answer is obvious. Save the money on a new agency, and fix the goddamn road. Sell off the insurance division of ICBC, and that gives you even more money. You're welcome.

For another egregious example of governments not doing things well, one need only look to our illustrious federal government, whose chief executive officer, Derek Zoolander, sets the gold standard for daily incompetence and bafflegab.

There’s a fair bit of worry in Canada over the Wuhan Coronavirus. Understandable, since in 2003 the SARS epidemic killed 44 people in Toronto and crippled the economy so badly only the Rolling Stones could save us.

Canada’s state-owned Ministry of Truth, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, clearly isn’t too worried about death and economic disruption, though. They ran a story on their website yesterday featuring a stern lecture from the Chief Health Officer of the federal government. The lecture wasn’t about washing your hands, or limiting your travel, or sneezing into your elbow. No, it was about being nice to Chinese people.

Theresa Tam called out Canadians for what are, apparently, “A growing number of racist(s) (sic) acts and comments on social media directed at people of Chinese and Asian descent.” The CBC went on to quote several people about things they’ve seen and heard. As this was part 108 of the CBC series “White People are Awful,” there was, of course, no counterpoint. And no comments allowed. Can’t have any Don Cherry fans checking in.

I’m going to put on my teacher hat for a second, and give reporter Kathleen Harris a letter grade for her report: F. You don’t make extraordinary claims about horrible statements and acts without providing some evidence of same. “Evidence” does not mean “My cousin’s sister’s uncle saw this on YouTube.” That’s called “hearsay.” Not once did the report provide a single link or a single piece of context to support her report’s contention, namely that the biggest problem with Wuhan Coronavirus is nasty racists. I also noticed there wasn’t any commentary or criticism on what, if anything, Dr Tam and her office have done to prevent the spread of Wuhan Coronavirus. This would be the state questioning the state, of course.

I have no doubt that there are some idiots out there, saying some stupid, racist things connected to the epidemic. But merely floating the idea of a travel ban or a quarantine does not qualify one for a Swastika armband. If it did, the biggest villain in this piece would be the People’s Republic of China. Clearly, they aren’t as interested in hurt feelings as we are. After a month spent denying and covering-up, they are now focused on limiting the spread of the virus, as they ought to be.

If I were Kathleen Harris, in addition to providing some evidence of the horrible statements I was alluding to in my report, I’d have also had some pointed questions for Dr Tam. Like why are we relying on temperature screening at airports, when Chinese authorities are reporting that asymptomatic patients can spread the virus? Why are we relying on self-reporting, when we already have multiple examples of people eluding screening, like the woman who took anti-fever drugs so should could make her dream trip to Lyon, then boasted about it on Instagram? Why are suspected cases being allowed to self-quarantine? Are we quarantining the people who look after them, too, bearing in mind how many health care workers have been infected?

Back to my main point: Preventing the spread of communicable diseases is a government function, and an essential one. But in this case, I see some serious concerns that a government more concerned with virtue signaling than concrete results isn’t minding the store. Running a news media conglomerate, on the other hand, is not a government function. The potential for abuse as a taxpayer-funded propaganda arm, is in my opinion, realized on a daily basis by the CBC. At a time when divisive rhetoric is completely unhelpful, what do they bring to the table? And in the least credible manner possible? Do they speak truth to power, by questioning Dr Tam on the government’s questionable preparations for another SARS nightmare? No, they do not.

Here’s the Libertarian take: If governments cannot fulfill their core duties, there is no way in hell you should be willing to give them even more control. The answer to government failure is not more government. It is a focusing of resources and an examination of what government must do, not what it could do.

Fix the roads. Keep us from getting sick. We can get our car insurance and news somewhere else.