I can see why this post has generated such an enthusiastic response. Arguing for the freedom to transact and other freedoms seems like a generally good thing. However, I’d like to argue that some of your statements reflect an unrealistic or at least improbable account of how things might have gone differently if the government hadn’t seized funds and invoked the Emergencies Act. For example, you say:
The protests were broken up only days later by arresting those present and towing trucks. Those invoking these financial penalties and requirements doubtless knew that this was the plan. Given that this was the plan, the financial measures were clearly completely unnecessary – things would have played out on the ground in exactly the same way.
I think you’re right, in a sense. The police would have been able to break up the protests without the accompanying financial actions carried out by authorities. But what about the medium and long-term effects of allowing lots of money to continue flowing into the reactionary movements that sparked the protests in the first place? There is a story I could tell in which that money fuels more disruptive and violent far-right protests in the future, and there is a story in which it doesn’t. Which story is more likely? (This isn’t a rhetorical question; it’s an invitation to think deeply about counterfactuals. And I’ll get back to my own answer later on.)
You seem to think that the financial measures will aggravate those who supported the protest into more fierce opposition to the Canadian government in the future. You point out:
The authorities said that they would be imposing these measures retroactively on people who left voluntarily and thus avoided being arrested.
While I fully agree that cracking down on people who indirectly supported the protests is a violation of people’s rights and is counterproductive to the government’s aims, I think it’s worth zooming out a bit and trying to consider the situation more broadly. After all, there are bound to be anecdotes from both sides which paint the actions of the other side in a terrible light. A bigger question to consider, which avoids fixating on the specifics of how the government’s actions played out, is whether or not the seizing of funds going towards the protest was a good idea or not (and on what time scales).
A natural comparison to begin answering this question is to look at the United States and the January 6th storming of the capital. It seems fair to say (although I could be wrong, haven’t looked at the numbers) that the United States has a lot more money in politics, proportionally, than Canada does. The United States is much less strict about money going towards the fringes of the political spectrum.
How has this worked out for the US? That depends on your own political perspective, of course, but my own perspective is that it doesn’t look great. If I frame the actions of the Canadian government in terms of removing money from the reactionary extremes of political discourse, their actions no longer seem to be so one-sided. (Again, that doesn’t excuse all their actions. I personally am hopeful that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act will be judged unconstitutional by the courts.)
Keep in mind the following facts:
The protests were allowed to happen relatively unimpeded for two weeks
The protest started by focusing on the vaccination requirement for truck drivers at the US-Canada border, then expanded to include protests against masking mandates and pandemic restrictions in general (one source)
Support for the protests dwindled significantly once their funding was cut off, as you yourself said
That last bullet point seems especially important to emphasize. Money is power. It’s all well and good to say that everyone should be able to spend their money however they like, but that only works up to a point. For society to function in a way that preserves law and order, as well as people’s rights (as much as possible), there must be cases when sending money to certain areas is illegal.
I think we generally understand this when it comes to most things. Authorities must forbid certain transactions from occurring, such as human trafficking and other illegal activities. There is a fine line to draw when it comes to money in politics, but that line does not appear (to me) to be black-and-white in this case.
Taking these actions galvanized people’s worst fears throughout not only Canada but the world. However much forceful dissent and distrust of the system was present before, it will doubtless be much, much more present going forward. The only way that is in the government’s interest is if it wants this fight in order to further suspend freedom and democracy and destroy the rule of law that much faster.
Still, in the hopes of avoiding being too black and white myself, I’d like to thank you for this write-up—especially stuff like the quoted paragraphs above. The Canadian government is stepping beyond its bounds and curtailing freedom and democracy, and we need a vigorous debate right now to hold our governments accountable.
A bigger question to consider, which avoids fixating on the specifics of how the government’s actions played out, is whether or not the seizing of funds going towards the protest was a good idea or not (and on what time scales).
Freezing the bank account of people who support the protests without a court order does a lot more thenthan seizing funds going towards the process.
Assuming that the rule of law is not anything worth thinking about because there are “bigger questions” is very dangerous.
But what about the medium and long-term effects of allowing lots of money to continue flowing into the reactionary movements that sparked the protests in the first place?
It’s unclear whether the action reduced long-term flow of money into reactionary movements. There’s quite a lot of crypto-money that’s hard to control. That money can not only be used to buy NFTs of monkey images but could also be used to fund reactionary movements.
There will be people who will be discouraged but other people will be radicalized. Those people who will be radicalized are likely more dangerous than the people who will be discouraged.
Agreed and, a broader point—I notice that authoritarians heavily intersect with “people who can’t imagine second-order effects of anything”. Theoretically we should see some authoritarians who think through everything at multiple levels and mastermind a better society against all odds, but instead we keep seeing that basic thought process of “X is bad. X requires Y. So let’s ban Y, boom everything’s solved.”
As a mistake theorist I suspect “no second order effects” is a mistake that leads many people in power to unwittingly inflict much misery on their societies.
Plenty of “cruelty is the point” signaling stuff going on too though, as Zvi says.
Theoretically we should see some authoritarians who think through everything at multiple levels and mastermind a better society against all odds
Policy is not made by single people but by institutions. In a highly authoritarian environment, the people in those institutions are not allowed to say things that would violate the party line and as a result, they are unable to really think through everything.
I can see why this post has generated such an enthusiastic response. Arguing for the freedom to transact and other freedoms seems like a generally good thing. However, I’d like to argue that some of your statements reflect an unrealistic or at least improbable account of how things might have gone differently if the government hadn’t seized funds and invoked the Emergencies Act. For example, you say:
I think you’re right, in a sense. The police would have been able to break up the protests without the accompanying financial actions carried out by authorities. But what about the medium and long-term effects of allowing lots of money to continue flowing into the reactionary movements that sparked the protests in the first place? There is a story I could tell in which that money fuels more disruptive and violent far-right protests in the future, and there is a story in which it doesn’t. Which story is more likely? (This isn’t a rhetorical question; it’s an invitation to think deeply about counterfactuals. And I’ll get back to my own answer later on.)
You seem to think that the financial measures will aggravate those who supported the protest into more fierce opposition to the Canadian government in the future. You point out:
While I fully agree that cracking down on people who indirectly supported the protests is a violation of people’s rights and is counterproductive to the government’s aims, I think it’s worth zooming out a bit and trying to consider the situation more broadly. After all, there are bound to be anecdotes from both sides which paint the actions of the other side in a terrible light. A bigger question to consider, which avoids fixating on the specifics of how the government’s actions played out, is whether or not the seizing of funds going towards the protest was a good idea or not (and on what time scales).
A natural comparison to begin answering this question is to look at the United States and the January 6th storming of the capital. It seems fair to say (although I could be wrong, haven’t looked at the numbers) that the United States has a lot more money in politics, proportionally, than Canada does. The United States is much less strict about money going towards the fringes of the political spectrum.
How has this worked out for the US? That depends on your own political perspective, of course, but my own perspective is that it doesn’t look great. If I frame the actions of the Canadian government in terms of removing money from the reactionary extremes of political discourse, their actions no longer seem to be so one-sided. (Again, that doesn’t excuse all their actions. I personally am hopeful that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act will be judged unconstitutional by the courts.)
Keep in mind the following facts:
The protests were allowed to happen relatively unimpeded for two weeks
The protest started by focusing on the vaccination requirement for truck drivers at the US-Canada border, then expanded to include protests against masking mandates and pandemic restrictions in general (one source)
90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated
Support for the protests dwindled significantly once their funding was cut off, as you yourself said
That last bullet point seems especially important to emphasize. Money is power. It’s all well and good to say that everyone should be able to spend their money however they like, but that only works up to a point. For society to function in a way that preserves law and order, as well as people’s rights (as much as possible), there must be cases when sending money to certain areas is illegal.
I think we generally understand this when it comes to most things. Authorities must forbid certain transactions from occurring, such as human trafficking and other illegal activities. There is a fine line to draw when it comes to money in politics, but that line does not appear (to me) to be black-and-white in this case.
Still, in the hopes of avoiding being too black and white myself, I’d like to thank you for this write-up—especially stuff like the quoted paragraphs above. The Canadian government is stepping beyond its bounds and curtailing freedom and democracy, and we need a vigorous debate right now to hold our governments accountable.
Freezing the bank account of people who support the protests without a court order does a lot more thenthan seizing funds going towards the process.
Assuming that the rule of law is not anything worth thinking about because there are “bigger questions” is very dangerous.
It’s unclear whether the action reduced long-term flow of money into reactionary movements. There’s quite a lot of crypto-money that’s hard to control. That money can not only be used to buy NFTs of monkey images but could also be used to fund reactionary movements.
There will be people who will be discouraged but other people will be radicalized. Those people who will be radicalized are likely more dangerous than the people who will be discouraged.
Agreed and, a broader point—I notice that authoritarians heavily intersect with “people who can’t imagine second-order effects of anything”. Theoretically we should see some authoritarians who think through everything at multiple levels and mastermind a better society against all odds, but instead we keep seeing that basic thought process of “X is bad. X requires Y. So let’s ban Y, boom everything’s solved.”
As a mistake theorist I suspect “no second order effects” is a mistake that leads many people in power to unwittingly inflict much misery on their societies.
Plenty of “cruelty is the point” signaling stuff going on too though, as Zvi says.
Policy is not made by single people but by institutions. In a highly authoritarian environment, the people in those institutions are not allowed to say things that would violate the party line and as a result, they are unable to really think through everything.