Why Justin Trudeau is Not a Liberal

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is a fucking goof and I'll puke six-ways from Sunday if he ever becomes Prime Minister. Not that our current hack is all that better, but at least he's somewhat independent. I mean, we can use the courts to counter Harper's social conservatism and if, politically, we demand less taxes and spending, he's the most likely to give to us – within reason. He is a statist after all. And I'm an anarchist. But back to Justin. This half-wit fuck-for-brains gave an hour long interview to Metro News the other week and I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of readers fell for it hook, line and stinker. Or, if they didn't buy into Justin's ramblings, they'll be happy to hear old Stevie and Tom Mulcair (who!?) tell their version of the story.

Our story begins with youth and the Middle Class. Trudeau says he knows young Canadians aren't feeling as prosperous as their parents. Oh boy, are we the first generation to have a lower living standard than our parents? Not in Canada! That never happens! We must keep getting richer and freer. Because that's the way things work! Or at least they were going that direction until Harper took over. Or at least that's the logic.

Nobody gets anything without debt. Homes, pensions, education. Taxes don't pay for everything. What's a surplus? Debt to income ratios are large. Debt is such a mandatory part of living, both in private and public life.

We can look to the history books to see the raising wealth tide, but we're stuck in the present watching the baby-boomers surf that wave. But there's too many baby-boomers all trying to surf at once on the same wave that doesn't even look that big any more. The wave is actually starting to break and hey, here are we young people waiting on the beach.

And who's leading the baby-boomers? It could be Justin Trudeau. In vein attempt to relive the glory days of their youth, these ageing assholes may actually vote in large enough numbers to see a Justin Trudeau-led Liberty Party form government.

But what's Justin going to do? We have every reason to suspect his government will be like the federal version of Kathleen Wynne's enviro-fascist-nanny-state-socialist disaster. And to top it off the neocons are in the Liberal Party as well. Just ask them about Russia, Israel, Iran and ISIS. Also don't forget the Bank of Canada. Nobody, outside of Tim Moen of the Libertarian Party, talks about the Bank of Canada in a constructive way.

Justin is going to specifically “invest” in education with “better” loans and by tying repayment of student loans to income. Now I put “invest” and “better” in quotations because that's literally what he said and I'm being sarcastic by pretending those are real things a Liberal – or any – government can do.

Investment is not possible. Investment implies reduced income and capital saved for future consumption. Government just collects money and spends it. That's it. You can call it “investment” but then I can also say “denial” means “it actually happened” and then call myself a Holocaust Denier. See what I did there?

What does Justin mean by “better?” I can only assume “better loans” means he'll change the rules of the game between borrowers and lenders. Listen, I know it's not a fair system. It's not like we have much choice in the banking department. But that's the root cause. Justin is all about the root cause, right? The actual “liberal” position in this case is freeing up the banking system. Getting politicians, bureaucrats and crony-capitalists out of the borrowing and lending business. Interest rates, for example, should not be set by government decree.

But that's not how Justin will do it. And improving the middle class? Not by defining this arbitrary group and thus disarming its use in political campaigns, but by spending money on infrastructure, especially transit, and encouraging central planning in the “resource and knowledge economy” whatever the fuck that means.

Let's start with who the middle class is. Not quite rich, but definitely not poor? What are we? Marxists? There are only two classes: individuals that in one way or another produce goods and services that people willingly buy, and individuals who operate in the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. i.e. those that create wealth and those that take it.

Justin Trudeau is in that latter category. So instead of actually improving infrastructure and transit, he'll borrow money in the name of everyone (supposedly) and spend it on crony-capitalists who agree to do whatever job he has in mind. Of course, the process is multi-layered through bureaucracy and labour unions (Oh god, don't get me started on labour unions). By the time the “improvement” reaches the consumer, he or she is often stuck in traffic while the road gets ripped up. And public transit, no matter how much the drivers are paid and the new and shiny the buses look, always suffer from economic calculation problems. Namely, the disconnect between what people actually want in transit and what the local authority is willing to provide. Often this manifests in standing in the cold waiting for the 1:30pm long past 1:30pm.

These are not hard problems to solve. We solve them everyday as normal market transactions. If only Trudeau were a real liberal and promised to decentralize everything. Localization and privatization is the key to restoring the middle class.

Before we move on from the middle class, just one more thing. Trudeau said we have to close the wealth gap. I know, right? Is this just a case of campaigning on the left for a government that will govern on the right? Or does Justin actually think doing anything but ending the Bank of Canada is a credible solution to wealth inequality? Not that wealth inequality is inherently bad, but most are willing to assume that in a free market system, we would not be experiencing this gross disconnect between the richest and the poorest. Namely, we wouldn't, as Harper always does, rely solely on corporations to create jobs. Instead of uniting the right with “of course corporations create jobs” and the centre with “but so do small-business entrepreneurs,” Justin moves to the far left and says: closing this wealth gap “means supporting middle class Canadians, not supporting the wealthy. That means we’re competitive in terms of corporate taxes but not creating giveaways in hopes that corporations will create jobs.”

The only answer Justin, an apparent liberal, should be giving on the economy is: cut taxes, reduce spending, open the public sector to private markets and abolish the central bank.

Now we get to the environment:

Trudeau hops on the “no argument, global warming is real and we are to blame” bandwagon and says provinces should price carbon with Ottawa having some kind of authority in the matter. Regardless of what you think of climate change, this shows that Trudeau is either not thinking straight or there is some nefarious motivation here.

Or perhaps a little bit of both. Like, “Hey if we do x our buddies in Europe will be able to build all those widgets!” Kind of like what happened in Ontario. They think they're doing something positive, but only because Wynne and Justin have their hot-heads so far up their stinky-asses that they think that everybody wants to smell their farts.

The actual liberal position is about private property rights. Pollution is a violation of private property. We've industrialized under a system where the protector of private property rights is a regular violator of those very rights. In fact, they claim to define those rights even though our liberal traditions – beginning with the Magna Carta – clearly state that those rights are independent of government. They rest on the consult of the people. Prime Ministers and Premiers do not speak for “the people.” For a parliamentary leader to speak "for the people" is to grossly misunderstand the way the whole system was designed to work.

But it obviously doesn't work. Aside from environmental problems, we now have a problem of government encroaching on more and more market exchanges in the name of “sustainable” economies. In actuality, it's a corporate-fascist takeover in some areas, and all-around socialism in others. Nowhere in the debate is a liberal position allowed. They even redefined the word liberal.

So then we get to child care, a topic that shouldn't even be covered in a federal election campaign. Justin Trudeau says, “The Liberal party is still pulling together our child-care plan. We’re looking at the new fiscal framework but we are looking directly at making sure that families like yours get the help they need.”

The only help I need is to be left alone. Others have become dependent on government services. They should be weaned off before the debt burden becomes too much. Welfares states don't work. The same fundamental problems that plagued the Soviet Union are now plaguing us. Every solution from the Conservatives to the NDP to Justin's Liberals is to increase the power and scope of the federal government. That is the one "solution" that should be rejected root and branch.

Well, maybe not in the Conservative case. When it comes to child-care they cancelled a universal plan in 2006 which was much appreciated. But since then they haven't eliminated income and property taxes so fuck them.

When it comes to terrorism the Liberals are voting for C-51. They say they have amendments which will probably stay ignored, so they'll argue for something closer to the election. Provided Harper doesn't call it early.

Justin's answer is of course pretty straightforward: “The fundamental responsibility of any government is to keep its citizens safe. Everyone gets that. Whether it’s rail safety — as we learned with Lac-Mégantic — whether it’s protection against jihadists and international terrorists and radicalization, that’s something the government needs to do.”

And government sucks balls at doing it. Our rails are some of the worst in the world. Certainly the worst in the developed world. I mean, really, have you ever ridden Via Rail? It's a horrendous experience. I can't imagine shippers are happy with CN compared to the free market possibilities that remain unseen. And of course, government intervention creates terrorist threats. It's called blowback.

On First Nations first Justin takes the soft approach: “We have a responsibility to make sure that First Nations education is funded, that a kid in a First Nations community has exactly the same level of funding as a kid in any other community in the country,”

So in other words: don't worry First Nations I'll keep throwing money at the problem.

But then Justin said: “There are a lot of structural problems that need to be addressed and a fundamental element of that is rebuilding the broken relationship.”

Scrapping the Indian Act? He would never be so bold. Nor would the First Nations Chiefs themselves take the bold, and correct stance. I am referring, of course, to separation. Complete and uncompromising secession from the Canadian state. End of story. Except that it wouldn't be the end of the story and that's part of the problem. Realistically, states have gotten so big and centralized that it's going to take more than a rowdy bunch of Indians to bring it down. But we would appreciate your help. So please, if you are of First Nation descent, I ask you to stop supporting “Canada” as an idea and read about free markets and private property. Hell, I'm asking all Canadians to do that.

When it comes to Legalizing Marijuana it's all about the children. “It’s all about allowing adults to make their choices while protecting kids much better than we are now.” Of course, nothing about the crony-capitalist takeover of the BC Bud market. But that's another tale of another day...

Needless to say, Justin Trudeau is not a liberal. He's a socialist. They're all a bunch of socialists. The state is nothing more than a socialist monopoly of law and order. Somehow the definition of law and order has expanded to include all these issues. Probably has something to do with the state-takeover of the schools. You know, those places that teach us the definition of words. Like liberal.