The peaceful occupation of the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank
Meyers has now entered into its third week. Supporters of the 85-year-old
farmer have been occupying the farm since January 13, as a defensive measure,
in order to prevent an armed invasion and seizure of the property by the
Department of National Defence (DND). The DND is seeking to expropriate (i.e.
steal) the farm in order to build a new training facility for the controversial
and secretive Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2).
To this point, in my communications regarding the attempted
expropriation of the Meyers farm, I have assumed that my audience sees the
situation for what it is – an armed robbery. This week, I would like to take the opportunity to address
some points made by those who favour this expropriation (and expropriation in
general) as a legitimate function of government.
Greater Good & Economic Benefit
Those in favour of the expropriation say that the
“greater public good” that would be achieved far outweighs the trauma that
would be experienced by Mr. Meyers as a result of being forcibly evicted from
his farm. Local proponents of the government’s plan, including Member of
Parliament Rick Norlock, Quinte West Mayor John Williams and talk radio host
Lorne Brooker, point to the economic benefit to the community, and the hundreds
of new jobs that the new base is supposed to bring to the region, as basis for
the legitimacy of the government’s action.
Consider this scenario: An armed robber enters a convenience
store in your town and forces the storeowner, at gunpoint, to hand over all of
the money in the store’s safe. He exits the store with a bag full of cash,
leaving behind a box of chocolates and a thank you card for the shopkeeper.
Couldn’t it be said that the robber has acted for the
greater good? Maybe he’s a friend of yours, a neighbour or co-worker. Maybe he’s someone who brings his car
to your auto repair business for maintenance, and someone with whom you share a
beer on a weekly basis. He’ll likely use the money he’s stolen to purchase
goods and services at local businesses around town. Maybe he’ll bring his car
to your shop for a tune-up that he’s been putting off for a while, or buy
everyone at the local pub a round next week. Heck, he’ll even buy a beer for the
shopkeeper who he’s robbed.
You, the proprietor of the pub and other business
owners around town will be glad to see the additional business, and the
townsfolk will be satisfied with a free beer. Shouldn’t the whole town be glad
to have such a skilled and benevolent robber among them, who, through his act
of violence, has stimulated the local economy?*
Surely you wouldn’t defend this man’s act of robbery merely
based on the use he makes of the stolen property. If it’s not appropriate for
an individual to steal, then by what mechanism does it become okay for a group
of individuals, who call themselves the government, or the Department of
National Defence, or defenders of freedom, or public servants, to do just that?
*For a better economic understanding of the impact of crime, learn about the Broken Window Fallacy.
