Ideas, Liberty and Freedom

by Ben Pascuzzi, University of Alberta, Law

Ideas are very powerful things. They can change the political, economic and social landscape of a society without a single bullet being fired. Ideas can't be fought with soldiers or tanks or computers.

Elites in human history, be they political, economic, or religious, have tried to stamp out what they considered to be "dangerous ideas that threaten social tranquillity" but have failed. In the end, as long as the human mind remains free, new ideas will emerge.

Those of us who value individual liberty should not look upon political correctness, special interest groups, university speech codes, or even blatant racism and sexism (sugar-coated as "affirmative action") as our primary enemies. Our enemy is, rather, the lingering ideas of socialism that persist in our society.

Ideas like, "the government can spend my money more wisely than I can," "the reason we have poor people is because others are rich," etc., continue to place constraints on political, social, and economic liberty. Only when these ideas are put to rest once and for all can we move towards a truly free society.

This is what we must present to Canadians: individual liberty is not a means, but an end in itself. We want to roll back the welfare state, not to hurt the poor, but to save them; we want to remove limitations on free speech, not to promote hate, but to end it; and we want to dismantle employment equity and affirmative action programs, not to marginalize groups, but to liberate the individuals these groups claim to represent.

In the end, one simple statement should be kept in mind: you do not free someone by taking the freedom of others and, when the state does, it enslaves us all.

Who Ya Gonna Call? ... P.C. Busters!

by Ezra Levant, University of Alberta, Law

When a politically correct (P.C.) witch-hunt comes to campus, will you know how to respond?

You'd better.

Recent developments suggest that a P.C. crackdown at your university is just a matter of time. For example, every law school in Canada now has two different admissions procedures-one for minority racial groups, and the other for everyone else. Same thing for professors-they're hired by quota too.

______________________________________________________________________
You can be a statistic-just another road-kill on the highway of political correctness. Or you can be a P.C.-busting hero.
______________________________________________________________________

And don't get any bright ideas about criticizing these policies: restricted speech and conduct codes have come to campus as well.

Look around you. Is there a "human rights" office on your campus? Odds are, the "rights" promoted wouldn't be found in any dictionary. In fact, at many schools, the human rights office is actually in charge of drafting the affirmative action plans, calculating the racial quotas, and writing the speech codes!

The crackdown is scary. With all these new rules and all these new rulers, something's got to give. After all, you can't have cops without bad guys. That's where you, the politically incorrect student, come in: you're the bad guy.

Maybe you ask a few too many questions of your socialist professor. Maybe you challenge the sacred cows of racial set-asides and affirmative action. Maybe you violate the speech code-you know, saying Manitoba instead of Personitoba.

One day, your professor might ask you to stay after class. You'll be told to tone it down-the word "please" will be used-but the speech code will be mentioned too.

Or, you'll be "invited" for a meeting with your dean. You know, nothing serious. You'll be told to stop writing those pesky letters to the school newspaper-please. But they'll also pull out the student code of conduct and threaten you with discipline.

You've got a choice to make.

You can be a statistic-just another road-kill on the highway of political correctness. Or you can be a P.C.-busting hero.

To win, bring the debate on to your turf. It's not that tough. Think of it as political judo-using your opponents' moves against them. Here are some tips:

• Bureaucrats work by threats. So rule number one-and this is critical-is to bring a witness to every P.C. encounter. You'll show the bureaucrats that you mean business. More importantly, you'll be able to prove it if they threaten you. And they will.

• Bureaucrats love rules. So always use their rules against them. If a committee wants to investigate you, demand to see their "terms of reference," the bylaws they have to play by. Demand to see every relevant document. Be tough. Think "hero."

• Always challenge their authority. Do they have the right to make you attend a hearing, to punish or threaten you? Remember, these professional busy-bodies think this is fun. It's up to you to make sure they're not having any more fun than necessary.

• Finally-and this is the exciting part-realize that you'll never win in their kangaroo courts. You must take your battle against P.C. to a fairer court: the court of public opinion. You must call in the media.

Expose the bureaucrats. Shine the bright lights of publicity on them. Make them explain themselves. Embarrass them. Hit them where it counts-their alumni fundraising. Remember, they'd hit you where it counts too, if they could.

It's time to put up or shut up. I guess it comes down to this: do you believe in freedom? If you don't, go back to bed. If you do, get ready, little P.C. buster.

Welcome to the fight of your life.

Choose your enemies as carefully as you choose your friends.

Towards A Free Labour Market

by Raphael Solomon, University of Toronto, International Relations

Sixty years ago in the U.S., the Democrats under Franklin D. Roosevelt legitimized revolutionary ideas of the left. Recently, governments have been elected vowing to overturn one of these entrenched ideas-that big government must interfere in the everyday lives of the citizenry.

One particular area has been ignored by the politicians and by the intellectuals supporting them. Manning, Gingrich, Klein, Harris-none have plans for a true revolution in the labour market. A truly free economy has a free labour market.

A labour market is composed of two groups: employers and employees. Employees are allowed to band together in unions to set the price of labour, but employers are not allowed to form cartels to set the wage rate. This is inherently unfair and unfree.

Union monopolies gain benefits for their members at the expense of non-unionized workers, consumers, shareholders, and the general taxpayer. Unions tend to represent narrow private interests at the expense of the public at large. A possible free market solution is to implement right-to-work (RTW) legislation under which individual workers would have the right to join a union on a voluntary basis.

By making union membership voluntary, consumers would gain, producers would gain, and efficient employees would gain. Unions that did not enlist enough members would be put "out of business" as they evidently do not represent the interests of the workers.

Assume that, under a traditional union contract, all employees of a certain firm make $20 per hour. However, some workers should be paid more; some less. With RTW laws, each employee would be paid his worth, there would be no wasted surplus in the labour market.

With increased globalization of trade, flexibility in the labour market is necessary if Canada is to attract investment capital and remain internationally competitive. Such a revolution in the labour markets in Canada is long overdue.

Moral outrage is the most powerful motivating force in politics.

Generation Taxed

by Sean McKinsley, University of Calgary, Political Science/Economics

Gone are the days of trouble-free youth. In Canada, every new child is born $31,000 in debt. Statistics used in this article have been compiled from Alberta Public Accounts, 1993-94; Isabella Horry, Filip Palda, and Michael Walker, Tax Facts 9, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1994; and Christopher Good, "The Generational Accounts of Canada," Fraser Forum Special Issue, August 1995.Note

This is the brutal reality facing future generations who will inherit a public debt of more than $2 trillion. Their taxes will have to pay the bills racked up by our politicians' out-of-control spending and promises of more spending.

Consider that today's generation pays a tax rate one third greater than its parents. In 1961, taxes amounted to 33.5 cents of every dollar earned by the average Canadian family. In 1995, it's nearly half of every dollar.

What if the 1995 rates were to increase by 50 percent? Sound impossible?

Unfortunately, this is not only possible-it is probable. For future generations-newly born Canadians, and those just now entering the workforce-the future tax burden could reach between 65 and 75 cents of every dollar earned.

The cause of this tax explosion? Politicians have been unwilling to stop spending. In addition, they have tried to balance the books by hiking taxes. In fact, higher revenues have only meant higher expenditures. In 1960, government revenues were 27 percent of Canada's Gross Domestic Product and spending was 29 percent. By 1993, revenues were 44 percent of GDP and spending was 51 percent.

______________________________________________________________________
Let's pay our bills today rather than cater to the "tax, borrow, and spend" gang that threatens to destroy our hopes and dreams.
______________________________________________________________________

The effect of this tax explosion on the younger generation-Generation X, as we are called-is harsh. Canada's future crop of professionals, technicians, farmers, and tradespeople will see their dreams of buying homes and raising families impeded by skyrocketing taxes and ballooning public debt. Generation Xers will be the first generation in Canada to work as hard as their parents yet have a lower standard of living. We will undoubtedly experience the highest effective rate of tax in the history of Canada.

Generation X? We are Generation Taxed!

Most Canadians understand that forcing this tax burden on future generations is immoral. The solution is to protect both present and future Canadians against harmful government policies of tax, borrow, and spend. Politicians have been unable to say "no" to the special interest groups and their whining for increased spending, financed on the backs of future generations. Statutory limits must be imposed on politicians' taxing, borrowing, and spending. Tax and expenditure limit laws (TELs) are needed.

But it is not our fight alone. Canadians-young and wise alike-are calling for TELs. Alberta and Manitoba have taken important first steps by adopting balanced budget legislation. Manitoba has also passed a Taxpayer Protection Act. Ontario's recently-elected Premier Harris has pledged to follow their lead. These provincial governments have recognized that taxpayers are sick of having no say in tax increases.

The time has come to leave the dangerous debt path that Canada is travelling on. Let's pay our bills today rather than cater to the "tax, borrow, and spend" gang that threatens to destroy our hopes and dreams.

[Editor's note: For a detailed analysis, refer to Robin Richardson, "Watch Manitoba for the Strongest Balanced Budget Law in Canada," Fraser Forum, September 1995, pages 19-20.]

Actions have consequences

Double Trouble for Transfer Bubble

by Kevin Garvey, Canadian Securities Institute, Canadian Securities Course

On June 19, 1985, the Prime Minister was confronted by a group of angry seniors protesting plans to reduce old age pensions. "You made us vote for you, then goodbye Charlie Brown" was the defining sound bite that aborted the federal government's proposal to control individual transfer costs. What was squandered was a rare opportunity to tame the growth of the "generational accounts."

Chris Good at The Fraser Institute has recently completed a pioneering study on generational accounting. Generational accounting is a method of calculating the future stream of government taxes, transfers, and expenditures based on demographics and population. Generational accounting helps determine whether public policy is sustainable given the fact that, eventually, governments must earn enough revenue to pay their bills. The study reveals that crushing taxes loom for young Canadians if we continue on our current course. Christopher Good, "The Generational Accounts of Canada," Fraser Forum Special Issue, August 1995.Note

Under our ostensibly "pay as you go" social welfare system, transfer payments from government are redistributed to individuals in the form of unemployment insurance, welfare payments and retirement pensions. The funding of these payments is based on the government's ability to tax labour market participants in order to pay the non-participants.

This is the political quagmire. Currently, 35 percent of our population is over the age of 50 and 10 percent of the workforce is unemployed. These groups are unlikely to approve of benefit reductions, yet if fiscal reforms are not imposed quickly, we will hamstring future generations of Canadians with unsustainable debt levels. Over the next 40 years, the number of Canadians over the age of 65 will double, and the ratio of workers able to support them will drop from 5:1 to 3:1. Unfortunately, as George Bernard Shaw observed: "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."

Governments have become masters at shifting and shuffling the real cost of these massive inter-generational transfers. What began as a small boil on the backside of government balance sheets has become a malignant tumour, bulging from the federal government's annual financial statements in the form of footnotes.

The current government has precious few public policy options at its disposal. In order to sustain our current transfer programs, the government should begin to pursue an aggressive immigration policy aimed at attracting young, skilled, employable immigrants. This policy should be combined with a reduction or freeze in current transfer payments to individuals in the hope that productivity remains stable at the 0.6 percent per capita growth range. If "radical" and "revolutionary" are not part of your vocabulary, they will be soon, Charlie Brown.

You can't save the world if you can't pay the rent.

CLUB NEWS

There are a number of clubs organized by, and targeted towards, Canadian youth that provide forums for discussion of free market, classical liberal ideas. Some host guest speakers, others simply have open discussions on public policy topics, but all offer an opportunity to learn, to meet like-minded people, and to have fun. Why not contact one of the clubs below:

Laissez-Faire Club of Vancouver
Contact: Tracey Nicholls Taylor at (604) 525-0309
Monthly meetings are held in The Fraser Institute's boardroom for spirited discussions of public policy issues within a classical liberal framework.

Laissez-Faire Club at the University of Alberta, Edmonton
Contact: Ben Pascuzzi at (403) 447-4940
Established three years ago, the Laissez-Faire Club at the U of A brings in prominent speakers and organizes various public events.

Laissez-Faire Club of Calgary
Contact: Rob Anders at (403) 680-4442
@BODY IN BOX = Do you enjoy hearing about smaller government and less regulation? Come on out to the Laissez-Faire Club of Calgary. It's free to join.

Laissez-Faire Club of Toronto
Contact: Avril Allen (416) 595-0179
This newly-formed club is looking for youth in the Toronto area who would like to discuss free-market ideas and eventually host events. Everyone welcome!

Amis de la liberté, Montreal (discussions in French)
Appelez-nous: Michel Kelly-Gagnon (514) 323-7576
Les amis de la liberté réunissent un groupe informal de réflexion qui s'intéresse aux aspects politiques, économiques et philosophiques de la liberté individuelle. Les Amis de la Liberté cherchent à mettre en oeuvre des moyens de promouvoir le libéralisme classique au Québec et d'explorer les avantages du libré-marché. Nous organisons notammant des déjeuner-conférence a tous les mois.

Book Reviews

What Everyone Should Know About Economics and Prosperity by James B. Gwartney and Richard L. Stroup, published by The Fraser Institute, 1993

Forget Economics 101. New age economics is nothing more than dollars and sense-common sense, that is. You don't have to teach me marginal utility to have me know that no sip of a slurpee tastes quite like the first. Keynes is dead and all that matters now is supply and demand.

The ideas in The Fraser Institute's "What Everyone Should Know About Economics and Prosperity" are simple and concise. No detailed graphs and no complicated language or theories. It isn't hard to comprehend such concepts as "Incentives Matter" and "There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." Why? Because this is the economics of every day reality.

Interesting examples applicable to our world are given to support simple ideas. Learn how a centrally-planned economy wastes resources. See why legislators run budget deficits and what we can do as voters to end it. Read why government helping some at the expense of others leads to economic retardation and plunder. Most importantly, realize the logic of the free market and come to understand why it works! In following our own self-interest, we assist others. In the words of Gwartney and Stroup, "[Sam] Walton and [Bill] Gates made a lot of money because they helped a lot of people."

Help yourself. Succumb to the free market and buy this book.

Reviewed by Stephanie Schramm, University of Calgary, Political Science

[Gwartney & Stroup's book is sold to students for $6 plus $4 shipping and handling, and GST.. To order your copy, call 1-800-665-3558.]

Une Société Sclérosée by Professor Jean-Luc Migué

In the past few years, it has become a virtual cliche to talk about young people who have no future and who must grapple with unemployment, suicide, AIDS, dropping out of school, and the national debt, to name only a few issues. Generation Xers face a bleak future from an economic, psychological, and social standpoint.

Professor Migué's latest book is a realistic account of the problems encountered in 1995 by young Canadians looking for their first job. The Professor of Economics at the National School of Public Administration in Quebec argues convincingly that, since the Quiet Revolution, growing government intervention has led to ever-rising unemployment. Excessive regulation of work, the heavy tax burden borne by employees and employers alike, the monopoly of unions, and trendy social views (job sharing, positive discrimination, minimum wage, etc.) are largely responsible for steadily rising unemployment rates.

Migué does not specifically single out young people as victims of this move to exclude the less organized from the labour market. Yet, one does not have to be a mind reader to understand that young people are the first ones to be adversely affected by political and bureaucratic decisions.

Every day, one sees how easy it is for our politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions at the expense of the younger generation and for the benefit of their voters and friends. Probably the most serious consequence of this is the increasing debt which has resulted from attempts to appease a multitude of special interest groups. When our federal MPs discussed symbolic cuts to their gold-plated pensions, it never even occurred to them to apply the cuts retroactively to those already benefitting from this costly plan.

Migué's book is a must-read for those who are interested in these fundamental questions. The "true" causes and the "real" culprits of the paralysis of the Canadian job markets are identified and clearly analyzed through a highly interesting empirical process.

Young people out of work, young social assistance recipients and students who are still in school not by choice, but by circumstance, should read Une société sclérosée in their spare time. Perhaps it will help them better understand why their job prospects are not quite as golden as those of their elders.

Reviewed by Eric Duhaime, École national d'administration publique

[Editor's note: Although this book is available only in French, we decided to publish the English translation of the book review as we felt that it provided our anglophone readers with valuable insight into the concerns of Quebecers. Professor Migué's book is published by L'etincelle of Montreal and is available for $14.99. Please telephone (514) 481-2440 or fax (514) 481-9973 for more details.]

If you don't read, you can't lead.

Careers in Ideas

Although free market ideals can be honed and practised in almost any environment, you may feel especially inclined towards a career in academia or the arts. If you love ideas, think them important, and want to have an impact on the future, you might consider a career in ideas, which may take one of several paths:

academia, which will involve some combination of teaching and research;

journalism, print (newspapers, magazines, books), broadcast (radio and television) or both;

public policy, which may involve analysis of public policy issues such as taxation, social programs, health care, government indebtedness, labour markets, etc. at both the provincial and national levels;

film, theatre, and fiction, whether it be scriptwriter or director, novelist or editor.

Click here to view Table

The test of moral ideas is moral results.

Take These Seminars...

The Fraser Institute is the only Canadian organization currently hosting market-oriented seminars and colloquia for youth. However, there are programs run by U.S. outfits which you may be eligible to attend and should be aware of. The seminar opportunities reviewed here represent two U.S. organizations who open their programs to Canadian students interested in free market ideals.

Youth Leadership School

Organizations like the Leadership Institute train activists who believe in the ideals of economic freedom and individual responsibility. Attending a Youth Leadership School taught me how to organize grassroots-based youth campaigns. They can teach you how to politically mobilize youth in order to create a winning psychology for your campaign.

Morton Blackwell, the founder of the Leadership Institute, was the youngest delegate for Barry Goldwater to the Republican National Convention in 1964. That experience made him realize that technology is as important a part of political success as are ideas. Morton started the Leadership Institute to teach young activists the skills necessary for them to make a difference in the public policy process.

Remember, nothing moves in the public policy process unless it is pushed.

Reviewed by Rob Anders, University of Calgary, Political Science grad '94.

[The Leadership Institute's program, Youth Leadership School, is a gruelling (8am-midnight) weekend-long seminar that teaches political technology and campaign strategy in circumstances designed to simulate actual campaign conditions. In 1996, two seminars are being held just south of the border: February 17-18, Ithaca, NY; and March 23-24, Seattle, WA. There is a $50 registration fee which covers meals and conference materials only. Further information on these programs can be obtained from the Leadership Institute at (703) 321-8580.]

The Institute for Humane Studies

The Institute for Humane Studies operates out of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. This is how it seees its mission:

IHS is an ideological organization, in the true sense of the word-the study of ideas. Of course we are interested in ideas that we believe will improve the quality of life of humanity. These ideas are based on the dignity and worth of each individual and, flowing from that, individual rights and voluntarism in all human relations. The foundation gives rise to a confidence in free markets and the institutions of private property, the rule of law, and an expectation of individual responsibility.

______________________________________________________________________
Many of the American students identified themselves as libertarians and held a much more radical view of classical liberalism.
______________________________________________________________________

The week-long seminar consisted of four one-hour lectures per day, each lecture followed by a 15-minute small group discussion and a half-hour question and answer period. The lectures were provided by four different instructors in the fields of economic history, law, economics, and political philosophy. Advance readings sent to participants dealt with the writings of F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Richard Epstein, and Ludwig Von Mises, among many others.

As neo-conservatives, most of the Canadians there agreed that the role of the free market is central to sustainable economic success and human dignity, but that the role of the state, albeit a very limited one, is crucial for the purposes of dealing with law and order and some areas of market failure.

Many of the American students identified themselves as libertarians and held a much more radical view of classical liberalism.

I would highly recommend this seminar to any scholar with an interest in ideas. I have gained a much greater appreciation for the concept of liberal thought and the high quality of intellectual thinkers made this a week well spent.

Reviewed by Norman Groot, Wilfrid Laurier University, Economics

[The Institute for Humane Studies offers week-long summer seminars, held throughout the U.S., mixing lectures and discussions about liberty and classical liberal ideas, designed to stimulate and challenge your views on public policy issues. Some of the seminars are geared towards undergraduates, while others are intended for graduate students, and still others are for writers and film makers. If you are chosen to be a participant, all your accommodation and meal costs are covered-all you have to pay is your travel to the U.S. destinations. Information about their programs can be obtained from the IHS at (703) 934-6920.]

You can start too late, but never too early.

... And Internships

Looking for a summer job? Consider a summer internship. Internships are a great way to gain experience while contributing to the public policy process. Some of the jobs you might perform as an intern include library research, writing for the organization's publications, editing, and event participation. Below you will find two examples of internship opportunities.

The Fraser Institute

As an intern, I was given the opportunity and support to write a book-almost unheard of for a twenty-three year old student. Tentatively titled Youthquake, the book documents the tremendous debt burden that government overspending is putting on Generation X.

I also attended the Institute's summer events-the guest speakers, the round-table lunches and the detailed briefings. Of course, simply working in the Institute itself was a great way to learn about the free market, from the experts. I leave The Fraser Institute knowing that I have a tremendous ally in the fight for liberty and free markets. The wealth of research, the quality of the staff, and the vision of Dr. Walker are a potent combination. The Fraser Institute is an indispensable resource for any student who cares about freedom in general, and free markets in particular.

In fact, I think that the Institute's internship is a vital addition to any education. The Fraser Institute "tops up" any university degree, by providing a free market approach to the world of economics and politics.

The research skills I practised, the free market ideas I learned, and the leading public figures I met made this an unforgettable summer.

Reviewed by Ezra Levant, University of Alberta, Law

[The Fraser Institute offers summer internships to university students undertaking specific research projects under the guidance of policy directors. During their summer terms, interns strengthen their research and writing skills, take part in Institute events and work along-side Canadian public policy experts. Interns also have the potential for having their research published in Fraser Institute books or newsletters. Once the internships are complete, the Institute continues to support and mentor the students with a view to helping them secure positions in their chosen fields. Information can be obtained by contacting Annabel Addington at The Fraser Institute, (604) 688-0221, ext. 315.]

Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program

My particular internship was sponsored by the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program. An internship is an incredibly worthwhile investment if you're interested in a serious education about advancing free markets and fiscal sanity in government.

And you won't be alone if you do decide to come. Every summer, Washington, D.C. is taken over by interns from all parts of the United States and some from Canada. Many of the people who staff the think tanks and advocacy groups were interns themselves only one or two summers ago.

During their internships, students learn about the policy process and the skills that are necessary to effect policy change. No other experience could leave you feeling more motivated and ready to act on your beliefs than being an intern.

Reviewed by Avril Allen, University of Toronto, Law

[The Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program is a ten-week program that includes two weeks of seminars on market-based public policy and an eight week internship with a Washington, D.C., policy institute. Information about this program can be obtained from Matt Estabrook at the Center for Market Processes at (703) 934-6970.]

Keep your eye on the main chance and don't stop to kick every barking dog.

Turnaround By Young People In Quebec

by Eric Duhaime, École national d'administration publique

As part of its approach to the referendum, the Parti Québécois government set up travelling commissions responsible for ascertaining the political mood of various religious and age groups.

The government believed that the work of the Commission des jeunes sur l'avenir du Québec (Youth Commission on the Future of Quebec), as part of this exercise in information and participation, would be a real sovereigntist pep talk that would confirm, once again, that young people as a whole support the government's approach to the referendum. How surprised the government was when the report by the Commission des jeunes was finally submitted on March 20, 1995!

______________________________________________________________________
. . . young people are not changing; the times are changing.
______________________________________________________________________

The report hardly mentioned the plan for sovereignty. Its first three recommendations called for the elimination of three things: job security for public servants; the Conseils régionaux de concertation et de développement (Regional Consultation and Development Boards); and school boards. The report also recommended the passage of basic legislation on deficit control; challenged the sacrosanct universality of social programs; and called for a return to the principle of responsible schools, over which parents would have real power, offering courses which instill entrepreneurial values.

Those were the findings of six of the eight commissioners on the Commission des jeunes after it had received over 300 briefs and heard from more than 5,000 young people. In other words, if the message of giving responsibility to individuals and phasing out government participation and bureaucracy is being expressed in Quebec society, it is the young generation that is proclaiming it.

Another encouraging sign is the recent emergence of a group of young libertarians in Quebec. Calling themselves "Amis de la liberté" (Friends of Freedom), some 30 individuals, mainly young people, meet every month in order to attend a lunchtime talk and debate the advantages of the free market, individualism, and tolerance.

The turnaround by young people in Quebec may not be surprising, given their situation. Young people in Quebec are more affected by damaging government obesity than are young people in other Canadian provinces or American states.

Quebec's per capita debt is the highest of all the provinces. The province's unemployment rate in 1994 for people aged 15 to 29 was 15.7 percent-not counting the 12.1 percent already receiving social assistance or the incalculable number of young people who had artificially become students because of lack of work. Young people aged 15 to 29 accounted for only 22 percent of the population in 1991, down 7 percent from ten years earlier. That means fewer young people to pay for ever-more generous and numerous pensions for baby boomers and for the skyrocketing health care costs of an aging population.

The gravity of the situation for the upcoming generation undermines not only the finances, but the enthusiasm and energy of tomorrow's labour force. We are now seeing record suicide and dropout rates among young people in Quebec.

Although most young people still support the sovereignty option, they do so for very different reasons than did their parents 30 years ago. They see Canada as a country whose fragile unity is held together through the massive indebtedness of all its citizens. Young people no longer want to support the federal government at the cost of their future. They see sovereignty as Quebec's only available means to end the federal government's irresponsibility, duplication of services, and ruinous jurisdictional overlap.

As popular journalist Lysiane Gagnon perceptively noted in her comment on the Commission des jeunes report, young people are not changing; the times are changing. How right she is! What ideals, if not individualism and freedom of choice, can this generation afford-a generation that knows it will have to bear the burden of interventionism inherited from the Quiet Revolution?

In moments of crisis, the initiative passes to those who are best prepared.

The Best Health Care System in the World?

by Cynthia Ramsay, Health Care Economist, Fraser Institute

Universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive, and publicly administered! These are the five principles on which the Canadian health care system is based. They are enshrined in the Canada Health Act (1984) and they make the Canadian health care system the best in the world. They are worth protecting at all costs . . . .

And so goes the rhetoric of the federal health minister and of other supporters of Canada's current health care system. It should only take a few examples to convince you that the rhetoric is just that-rhetoric, without much substance.

Universal

British Columbia and Alberta have medical premiums. It is estimated that 95-97 percent of people are covered by provincial insurance in B.C. Thus, in B.C., roughly 108,800 to 181,370 people do not have public health insurance.

Accessible

A Fraser Institute study indicates that waiting times for surgical procedures vary greatly across provinces, the wealthier provinces tending to have the shorter hospital waiting lists. Waiting lists might be acceptable if the length of wait was based purely on medical necessity, but studies have shown that 80 percent of the time, patients who jump to the head of the line in B.C. do so for non-medical reasons (ie. at the request of senior Ministry of Health officials).

An Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation study showed that waiting times for cancer treatment in Canada are 3 to 4 times longer than in the United States. More importantly, it reports that the waiting times for treatment in Canada are substantially longer than what radiation oncologists consider to be the maximum medically acceptable time to wait.

Portable

Ask Quebecers if their health plan is portable. You will find the answer is no. Quebecers who find themselves requiring medical services in another province must pay out-of-pocket for these services. When they return home, they will be reimbursed only for the amount these services would have cost if performed in Quebec.

Comprehensive

The list of services covered by the Act is not, never has been, and never will be a comprehensive list. There is not even a national consensus as to what services are medically necessary and, therefore, should be publicly insured. Since health is a provincial responsibility, different provincial insurers cover different procedures.

Publicly administered

In the Canadian system, the government is, more or less, the monopoly employer of health care personnel. When labour negotiations break down, there are no other sources of care available, and patients pay the consequences. With the latest piece of provincial legislation in British Columbia, the Medicare Protection Act, the B.C. government is extending its powers even further. Even if a doctor decides to opt out of the medicare system entirely (so that he receives no funding whatsoever from the government), the government reserves the right to set his fees according to what it deems acceptable. In essence, the government reserves the "right" to publicly administer the private sector!

Despite the contentions of Canada Health Act supporters, its principles are not being upheld. It is a myth that Canada has a one-tier health system in which everyone has equal access to quality health care. It is not convincing to use the Canada Health Act as an argument against moving to a two-tiered health system in Canada.

In a two-tiered system, public and private deliverers and insurers of health care must compete with each other for clients (patients). A two-tiered system does not mean that there will be one quality of care for those who can afford it and an inferior quality of care for those who cannot. The public system will be forced, by competition, to offer a level of service comparable to that being offered by the private system.

A two-tiered system means that waiting lists can be reduced, that patients can have greater control over decisions which concern their own health, and that Canada can truly have the best health care system in the world.

All gains are incremental; some increments aren't gains.

"A Rose by Any Other Name..."

by Sonia Arrison, University of British Columbia, graduate student in Political Science.

Many people-with good cause-are confused about the terms "conservative," "liberal," and "classical liberal." The meanings of these words have changed over time and are further blurred in everyday usage by the press. For example, those who believe in the free market are routinely lumped in with other individuals, such as holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, under the broad terms "right wing" or "conservative." It's time to clear up confusion surrounding these words and also to show why free market thinkers do not belong in the "conservative" category.

First, a genuine "conservative" is not simply someone who belongs to the Conservative Party or calls himself or herself a conservative. Likewise, a real liberal is not simply an individual who every year votes for the Liberal Party of Canada. Parties in Canada are not about conservative, liberal, or socialist principles. Rather, Canadian parties are pragmatic. They adopt platforms and ideas that will serve their main purpose: to get elected.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" originated in Europe, and their roots reveal their true meanings. At the base of the word liberal is "libre" or free. In the original use of the term, a liberal was someone who valued freedom. In contrast, the word conservative has as its root "conserve." To conserve is to preserve, or to oppose change. The doctrine of conservatism is a doctrine of clinging to the past and of distrusting new ideas and innovations.

Conservatives are different from classical liberals because they do not believe that a "spontaneous order" can occur in a completely free market. Conservatives see order as "the result of the continuous attention of authority." Therefore, a true conservative cannot support the free market. Unlike the classical liberal who is optimistic that the self-regulating forces of the market will adapt to new problems, a conservative is a pessimist. In the European sense of the term, conservatives are Monarchists; the past to which they cling is one of order imposed by a sovereign.

Clearly, the definition of conservatism changes along with history. Conservatives today usually value small government and family values which they believe were in place when Canada was born. The interesting thing about conservatism is that which specific past is conserved is a matter of temporal destiny; and therefore there are no ultimate principles of conservatism. This is relevant because no guiding principles are bad principles. Rather than being a "forward looking doctrine," conservatism is a "backward reaching doctrine" and hence will not advance until pulled along by some strong force, whatever that force may be.

In Canada, the strong force has predominantly been a socialist force. Clues as to what a socialist values can be taken from the foundations of the word itself: "social." Socialists are individuals who argue for collective measures such as "socialized medicine." They believe in large government, and that the collective good of society is more important than individual freedoms. In Canada, the term "liberal" has come to symbolize socialist ideals which explains why many classical liberals have adopted the label "libertarian."

The interaction between theory and practice has resulted in a strange labelling shift. Those Canadians whose principles led them in the past to call themselves "socialists" now call themselves "liberals." Individuals whose highest value is freedom are now forced to use the awkward term "libertarian" or "classical liberal"; and conservatives are often confused with libertarians who advocate the free market.

______________________________________________________________________
In Canada, the term "liberal" has come to symbolize socialist ideals which explains why many classical liberals have adopted the label "libertarian."
______________________________________________________________________

The confusion between libertarians and conservatives often stems from an agreement between the two that there should be less government. However, there is an enormous difference between conservatives and libertarians in terms of why less government is favoured. Libertarians see it as a way to guarantee individual freedoms while conservatives merely want to "go back to how it was"-or how they think it was.

This difference is important. After all, conservatives favour a society in which established values can justify privilege or monopoly to shelter certain people against the forces of change. That type of society is not one that appeals to many.

You can't beet a plan with no plan.

Condamnes à innover

by Pierre Desrochers, National School for Scientific Research, Urban Studies

It is true that an isolated workman often throws away a number of small things which would have been collected and turned to good account... but waste of this kind can scarcely occur... even if it is in the hands of small men; and there is not very much of it in any branch of industry in modern England, except agriculture and domestic cooking. No doubt many of the most important advances of recent years have been due to the utilizing of what had been a waste product; but this has been generally due to a distinct invention, either chemical or mechanical, the use of which has been indeed promoted by minute subdivision of labour, but has not been directly dependent on it. Cette citation est tirée de la huitième édition de l'ouvrage. Voir Marshall [1920] 1976: 233.Note

-Alfred Marshall,
Principles of Economics,
1ère édition, 1890

Selon une croyance répandue, la croissance économique et le progrès technologique détruiraient l'homme et son environnement. Mais comment alor expliquer que des calamités comme le saccage des forêts, l'érosion des sols et la disparition des terres arables soient le lot des pays du Tiers-monde ou de l'ancien Bloc de l'Est bien plus que des économies avancées? Le progrès technologique et la croissance économique seraient-ils les meilleurs remèdes à nos problèmes environnementaux?

C'est du moins l'opinion de scientifiques aussi réputés que James Lovelock - le père de l'hypothèse Gaia L'hypothèse Gaia, très populaire mais souvent mal comprise par bon nombre d'écologistes, postule que la Terre et la biosphère constituent un ensemble régulateur qui lutte et résiste de lui-même contre les excès risquant de le dégrader. Voir Lovelock [1979] 1993.Note - pour qui la pollution (entendue au sens de déversement de déchets) est aussi naturelle a la "Terre vivante" que le fait de respirer pour les espèces animales. Il ajoute néanmoins que pour demeurer maître du génie que nous avons libéré de sa bouteille, nous sommes condamnés à innover et à concevoir continuellement de nouvelles technologies.

La plupart des idées reçues sur la nature du progrès technologique sont pourtant le plus souvent erronées. Qui sait ainsi que la technologie précède presque toujours la science et que les inventions commercialisables les plus radicales sont surtout le fait des petites et moyennes entreprises et non pas des multinationales ou des laboratoires de recherche? En fait, l'innovation technologique procéderait bien plus par la combinaison de plusieurs procédés plus anciens et serait essentiellement additive, i.e. qu'elle résulterait de petites innovations continuelles et non pas de changements radicaux, comme par exemple la découverte de l'acier ou de l'électricité. Le lecteur voulant une bonne introduction au sujet ainsi qu'une explication plausible quant aux facteurs ayant mener à la prédominance de la vision surestimant le rôle de la recherche fondamontale pourra notmment consulter le numéro spécial "The Interaction of Science and Technology in the Industrial Age" de Technology and Culture 17(4), Octobre 1976. Pour un texte plus récent traitant sommairement de tous ces points, voir Parayil (1991).Note

Comment cela se traduit-il en matière environnementale? Essentiellement par l'apparition de nouvelles technologies moins dommageables On peut ainsi rappeler que, malgré leur caractère nuisible, l'exploitation du charbon a permis de mettre fin au saccage des forêts et l'utilisation du pétrole a mis fin au massacre des baleines, tuées pour leur huile. Le charbon et le pétrole étaient pourtant considérés comme de peu d'interêt jusqu'à ce qu'on mette au point des technologies en permettant l'utilisation. En fait, il est de plus en plus admis que la correction des défauts des technologies existantes est sans doute le principal moteur du changement technologique. Voir Petroski (1992).Note mais surtout, comme l'a noté il y a plus d'un siècle l'économiste Alfred Marshall, par le recyclage de produits ou de sous-produits de l'activité industrielle. Si le traitement de ce sujet par Marshall est le plus ancien à m'être tombé sous la main, celui de Jacobs (1969) m'apparaît plus intéressant.Note Il ne s'agit pourtant pas du recyclage intégral que plusieurs paliers gouvernementaux tentent maintenant d'imposer, où un matériau retourne dans son produit d'origine (par exemple, le papier journal en papier journal, le verre des bouteilles en verre de bouteilles), mais bien plutôt d'un usage novateur et rentable des ressources gaspillées.

Les quotidiens nous donnent continuellement des exemples de réutilisation créatrice des déchets faites sans coercition gouvernementale: une usine de transformation de poissons convertit ses déchets en farine de poisson; une centrale au charbon utilise sa poussière dans des produits de ciment et transforme ses émanations sulfureuses en acide sulfurique; une laiterie et une décharge municipale convertissent les émanations de leurs résidus en gaz méthane, etc. (Tomalty et Pell 1994). Pour illustrer à quel point le phénomène est antérieur à la "prise de conscience environnementale" de certains législateurs, il suffit de rappeler quelques découvertes archéologiques: une flûte en os datant de 32 000 ans, une lampe chauffé avec de la graisse remontant à 17 000 années ou encore des statuettes d'ivoire ayant au moins 14 000 ans (Begley et Lief 1988). Que la transformation soit faite par le producteur d'un résidu ou une autre entreprise importe peu. Ce qui semble pourtant certain, c'est que ce processus sera grandement facilité par l'application d'un procédé techno-logique novateur ou déjà utilisé dans un autre secteur d'activités.

Bon nombre d'auteurs craignent pourtant que le progrès technologique ne puisse suivre notre production de déchets nuisibles. C'est cependant oublier que si effectivement l'innovation résulte pour l'essentiel de la combinaison de plusieurs choses plus anciennes, le nombre d'innovations devrait croître très rapidement à mesure qu'augmente le nombre et la disponibilité des technologies (Waldrop 1992). Petroski (1992) a également élaboré une thèse intéressante selon laquelle la correction des défauts des produits et procédés est le véritable moteur du progrès technologique; comme il n'y a jamais rien de parfait, nous pouvons donc être assuré de sa pérennité. De plus, un examen historique de l'évolution technologique devrait, selon certains chercheurs (Hueckel 1975, Waggoner 1995), nous rendre optimiste.

Il ne faudrait pourtant pas croire que le progrès technologique est une donne inévitable de la condition humaine. Le mathématicien Rene Thom (Sorman 1989) ou le métallurgiste Cyril Stanley Smith (1982) nous rappellent ainsi, parmi d'autres, qu'entre 1880 et 1940 la vie des êtres humains a été concrètement modifiée par l'apparition de l'électricité de la radio, du téléphone, du moteur, de l'automobile, de l'avion, des antibiotiques et de plusieurs autres trouvailles technologiques importantes qui ont été bien plus significatives que ce que nous avons connu depuis la fin du second conflit mondial.

Comment expliquer la stagnation de l'activité inventive ces dernières décennies? Il s'agit selon moi de la conséquence logique d'une idéologie interventionniste postulant que le développement économique consiste à faire toujours plus des mêmes activités plutôt que d'en concevoir de nouvelles ou que la clef de l'élimination des sous-produits industriels conciste à diminuer radicalement la production plutôt que de se fier a la créativité des producteurs pour trouver de nouvelles façons rentables d'utiliser les déchets. Il est ainsi certain que l'innovation technologique répond aux signaux du marché et que conséque-mment la distorsion systématique desprix effectuées par nos gouvernements au nom d'une "restribution plus équitable de la richess" (comme par exemple les tarifs préférentiels en électricité consentis à certaines industries "energivores" ou les subventions indirectes massives à l'industrie automobile par la construction d'autoroutes) a prolongé indûment la vie utile de certaines technologies et découragé l'apparition d'alternatives plus propres, efficaces et économiques.

La protection de l'environnement est longtemps apparue comme le noyau dur de la réglementation, où seule la puissance publique était susceptible de prévenir le gaspillage des ressources. Il s'agit pourtant d'une position réactionnaire et sans fondements empiriques car les problèmes environnementaux ne sont pas le lot des économies libres, prospères at novatrices mais bien plutôt des économies interventionnistes, stagnantes et sclérosées.

Effort is admirable. Achievement in valuable.

Don't treat good guys like you treat bad guys.

What Is Seen and Not Seen in The Era of the Snappy Soundbite