Just tell me to how much of my paycheck to send to whom... BAAAA

So Ontario agrees to join a coalition that pledges to loot Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s energy revenues. British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba and now Ontario have all agreed to a carbon trading plan. For all those unfamiliar with Socialist doublespeak this simply means Alberta and Saskatchewan have to pay other provinces for their right to produce their own petroleum (does Ontario pay me for the right to produce steel?) Since Ontario will not use up their petroleum quotas they are free to sell their quota rights to Alberta — what did they have to lose? There couldn’t be a finer plan for provinces not heavily involved in the energy game (albeit death knell B.C does have considerable gas in the north east). Why wouldn’t they try to vote for their share of the plunder? Basically, they have pledged their support for a plan that oversees the honestly earned wealth in western Canada transferred to bureaucratic hordes in eastern Canada. Wealth transferred from a free and independent class to a envious, parasitic class of government types.

How could this ever be considered just amongst the civilized? Raskilinov was sentenced to Siberia. So I look for the defences—the Suzuki Foundation claims “We now have 75% of the population agreeing to emission trading.” The Suzuki foundation is an environmental cause. This doesn’t affect them. The same amount of petroleum is being produced so the environment remains unchanged. I am confused. And back to the voting pattern— because this is always a popular justification. The vote is always predictable. Anyone mystified by the fact that a group of people without gold would vote to steal away an individual’s accrued gold if given the chance is predictable. Then if the local authorities told them they would not be persecuted for their theft but in fact applauded the results are even more predictable. Then if further prodded by the offer of a middle man to do the dirty work and perpetrate actual theft of the gold, certainly the results of the vote would be all but guaranteed. I think it was Ol’ Ben Frank that said democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Why do journalists, academics, university groups, activist groups, and governments generally laud democracy as the pinnacle of cultural social development? We should strive for a state in which arbitrary thefts are outlawed. And democracy doesn’t prevent arbitrary persecutions. Democracy provides no model for “what ought to be done”, it is only valuable as means to an end. If it is wrong for another individual to hold a knife to my throat and demand my wallet then how is it alright for the government to put a gun to my head and demand 50 cents every time I earn a dollar? Just because people voted for it? For a society to be just government’s power needs to be limited. If governments are allowed arbitrary powers then nobody’s rights are safe for very long. How ridiculous would it sound if a fish tax was enacted—wherefore, every fish caught in Newfoundland 15 cents was sent to Sakatchewan —a case could be made that the East’s overfishing has prevented my right to earn an income from the ocean. This is the same logic that is applied to energy. I have even heard the claim that everyone has a right to the energy trapped in rock three miles beneath the earth then we all have equal rights to the revenues created from the fishes in the ocean, the trees, the ore… and so on.