In June of last year, I posted Unintended Consequences. Recently I listened to one of my favourite politicos, David Frum. He was interviewing a former FBI agent who was in the midst of suing the US government, and it triggered my thoughts below.

If you recall Part I, I maintained that government could have one of two aims:

1. Security of the nation; or
2. Wellbeing of the populace.

Without ignoring the many, many, variations open to either of these aims, it is clear that although they are not mutually exclusive, they are most certainly divergent, if not in theory, then at least in practice. Those countries that focus on security tend to have strong militaries whereas those that focus on wellbeing tend not to be major military powers. This simple choice, security or wellbeing, quite literally shapes the societies in which the citizens of any particular country live.

Let’s consider Canada. Our great nation was founded with the aim of “Peace, Order, and Good Government” a phrase used in Section 91 of the British North America Act (subsequently renamed the Constitution Act) of 1867. It has shaped our country and its unique culture. It is not that we have not had strong militaries for we have, and clearly we need to strengthen what we currently maintain. But the fact that the military is not the major expenditure in our national budget says much about what we want our country to be.

Do not misunderstand me. I am no pacifist, and it pains me that we have let our armed forces become so small and in such need of rebuilding. In our desire for wellbeing, we have collectively — whether intentionally or not — forgotten the law of unintended consequences and arguably improperly understood what the aim of our elected government should be. Wellbeing does not obviate the need to stand ready to enforce our desires at home and also honour our responsibilities in the broader community of nations.

One of the lessons that we all learn in Economics 101 (Macroeconomics) is the nations need to make choices. It is the classic question of “guns or butter”. The “guns or butter” hypothesis is a fundamental concept that illustrates the trade-off and opportunity cost that a nation faces when allocating limited resources between defence spending (guns) and civilian goods and services (butter). What the hypothesis attempts to demonstrate is that given scarce resources, spending more on defence leaves less money to spend on civilian goods and services, and vice versa. Keep in mind that it is a simple model that addresses a highly complex issue; but it is illustrative of a basic concept.

In times of uncertainty, it is only natural that people crave both sureness and security. But herein lies the peril of falling into the trap of listening to demagogues who promise to keep society safe from “others” in their midst. This concern is by no means new, and it is most famously exemplified by a 1755 quote from Benjamin Franklin, made during a debate in the colonial Pennsylvania Assembly. Although the debate referred to a tax bill being discussed, the concept continues to obtain today. Franklin warned his fellow assemblymen, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

As the old axiom warns: Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

The wisdom here is that unless you vote for the best leaders, what you are hoping for might have unintended consequences that you don’t like. Lots of leaders promise security, but what they inevitably deliver is tyranny. We need not look too far for an example. The US is only a short drive from 90% of the Canadian population …

Almost two decades ago, several European countries fell into that trap and began their national nightmares. Last week Hungary awoke from that dark sleep. Other countries are beginning to wake up as well, and although not exactly comparable, I count Canada among those countries. We now have a government led by a man who understands the need to balance both guns and butter.