"What I have … has depended on an enormous number of other people."

Scott Anderson, BC Conservative
member in Vernon Monashee

The other day I had a friend forward a piece that had been written by Scott Anderson, a member of the BC Conservative Party in the Vernon Monashee riding.  I thought what he’d had to say was great, and he agreed to let me share it with you today.  Here is what he had to say.

“Who here hates the poor?  This IS the BC Conservative party, isn't it?”

This stereotype is one we are going to be hearing more about as the election gets closer…how we conservatives hate the poor and love the rich. 

We'll hear about how if we win the election women will huddle on the street with hungry kids, the homeless will starve, and minorities will work in sweatshops run by our good buddies the ultra-rich, who will pay no taxes and cruise about town in limousines tossing bread crumbs to the hungry masses. 

It's complete nonsense, but some people actually believe it!

Now most of the arguments against expensive big government have to do with the cost of it - and it's true that we can't afford the socialism of 20th century Europe.  They can't afford it either, which is why Europe is in what amounts to a depression trying to pay for the mountain of debt they've built up over the last 60 years of socialism. 

But I want to talk about something else - something that we conservatives tend to let slide.  And that's the opposition's claim that in order to care about people, we need big government and big government programs.

I wrote a letter to the editor the other day and in it pointed out that we conservatives believe in liberty and self-sufficiency.  Several days later another fellow wrote an editorial to rebut my letter.  He pointed out that society needs rule of law and infrastructure, and therefore government.  He went on to say that none of us is completely self-sufficient, and that all of us are where we are because society helps us, and therefore we need a caring government willing to help people. 

He ended his editorial with the observation:  "What I have, has depended on an enormous number of other people."

I agree with everything he said completely…right up until his conclusion.  But the problem I have with his conclusion is that he's mixing up two concepts - society and government.  Yes we depend on other people - but does that mean we depend on government?

Liberty and self-sufficiency doesn't mean living in Hobbe's state of Nature with no government at all…it just means less intrusive government. 

Do we need laws?  … of course we do.  Do we need things like roads and hospitals? …  Yes.  Do we need a basic safety net to help people who can't help themselves?  … of course.  Is government the best institution to supply those things?  … I would say yes. 

As conservatives our disagreement, with so-called progressives, isn't whether we need government or not, it's whether we should be so dependent upon government, and whether government should take care of our every need.

The other day I heard a news report about a water problem somewhere in Canada, where one of the schools had to shut off its drinking water supply because it was polluted and a few kids got sick.  A week later the problem was fixed and you'd think that would be it.  But no…the day the water was turned back on, a news report added that "counselors were present to help the kids get over their fear of contamination." 

Really?  Is little Timmy going to dehydrate if his nerves aren't calmed by professionals?  Do we really need government-sponsored counselors to help us drink water?

Sure that's an extreme example, but it's an indication of where we're heading unless we put the brakes on the growth of government.  I for one don't want my kids to be so cradled by government that they can't function on their own. 

Does that mean I'm in favour of closing down nursing homes and turning the elderly into the street to fend for themselves?  Of course not.  What it does mean is I want government to back slowly away from areas it doesn't belong in.

Take for example the BC Liberal's $1.9-million provincial "informed dining program," which was supposed to reduce obesity by encouraging restaurants to list the calories in their dishes.  Never mind that several university studies and health professionals show that the program doesn't work.  Never mind that $1.9 million has been taken out of our pockets and thrown away.  After all, what's a couple of million in these days of kazillion dollar deficits?  Let's look instead at the fact of the program itself. 

Even if it worked perfectly, is it necessary? 

The private weight loss industry in BC alone is huge - Herbal magic, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig - and countless consultants and even free websites out there to tell people more than they ever want to know about high calories.  Any time an obese person wants to slim down, all he or she has to do is open the phone book or click on a website and sign up. 

Is it really necessary for the government to spent $2 million dollars to entice restaurants to spend even more money telling people that ice cream and pie causes weight gain? 

Now the program doesn't work, but if it did, wouldn't that mean that the BC government is actually hurting the weight loss sector in BC by supplying services the private sector is already supplying?  Killing jobs in the private sector to support a few union jobs in the public sector?  Does that make sense?

I could go on and on with useless programs that are supposed to help us and end up hurting us instead, but each one of you has heard it all before - the carbon offset program, taxing us to support big business; miles of red tape and bureaucracy businesses have to wade through; Human Rights Commissions running wild…you name it and BC has it.

And at the end of it all, are we better off?  Are we less obese now as a society than we were 100 years ago?  Every study I've heard says no.  Do we have less crime because of having more government programs to help us think proper thoughts?  Do we have higher grades in school because counselors are standing by to help us drink water?  Are we economically better off because of government regulation and interference in the economy?   

Are we more caring because government is bigger?  I'll let all of you answer that question.

Scott has made some great points – and asked some equally great questions.  What do you think?

I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops.