Democracy sounded like such a great idea! But as someone once warned long ago, "the appetite may come to rule." And isn't that just about the way things are playing out in North America? Someones appetite is definitely on the throne.
It seems that our entire political system is based on the story of Robin Hood and his merry men of Sherwood forest, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds so admirable, even heroic, until the question arises, "is stealing ever right?" And for that matter, what were those merry men living on whilst they carried on their business of helping all those helpless poor? Must've skimmed a wee bit o' pork off the top to sustain themselves whist helping the poor masses, one supposes. In fact, it might have become increasingly tempting for the merriest of the merry men to squirrel a little away somewhere, you know, in case the poor become really poor someday and the rich become too evasive!
And so it goes. I have a friend in Saskatchewan who lost and arm in a farming accident. He's a cheerful fellow and went on working even after his terrible loss to the point where his good arm is ceasing to function properly. One would think he would be the perfect candidate for social assistance. And yet, he has had the royal runaround trying to scrape a few dollars off Robin Hood. And he is not the only example I can think of. Meanwhile, gov't unions lobby for more security for their membership. There's money for their old age, for their dental work, potential disability! Think of it! My friend deprived of lifes necessities because someone in charge of distributing to the poor needs to be secured an income in case of a future disability! The homeless deprived of a bed because an employee of social services needs a pay increase to maintain her mortgage payments!
Its almost as if Sir Robin Hood rode off and robbed the local jewelry store and bravely buggered off hauling the loot back to Sherwood Forest, completely forgetting to drop a bit off for the impoverished children he bravely rode past, making his gallant escape. "It plum slipped my mind!" In fact, its worse than that, much worse.
Robin Hood robbed the "rich" meaning everybody, hauled the lot to the Forest, consumed it all in a drinking party of epic proportions and used his political connections to take out a loan on the future earnings of all the people of England, consuming that also until it was gone! Now to be fair, crumbs have fallen from their table and the poor have been allowed to have at 'em when the partys over , but you get the drift of whats been happening here.
It could be argued that all the above is "OK" because they have a mandate from the people. They voted, after all, for me to run the country and that is just what I'm doing. How can you suggest I'm doing something wrong? And there is an element of truth in that. Yet what is it that we really vote for, or is it just a matter of voting out that which we find to be the greater evil, as has just happened in Alberta, where Jim Prentice and his conservatives were given a dusting off of massive proportions by an enraged electorate?
So, just to help the curious politicians understand, here is a short list of what we vote against: We are against the making of promises to buy our vote and then the breaking of the promises made after the election is won. To us, this is no different that buying a car with certain options and having one delivered without the paid-for options. It is dirty, crooked, deceitful and must stop. One way that could be done is by recognizing that a political promise is in fact a contract between the electorate and the elected and that it is in fact, a legitimate enforceable contract and a politician who fails to keep said promise could be required to ante up with his own personal belongings. This is in fact, such an obvious solution its a wonder no one seems to have thought of it til now!
Secondly, we are against having our resources, including family members wasted in useless conflicts and the like. It is obvious that war is nothing more than a business enterprise and that very few conflicts are justifiable on any kind of basis because there is rarely anyone left on high moral ground when the insane butchery is ended. Witness the Nazi trials in Nurembourg. All that wanton destruction and torture seemed like a good idea at the time. "Just doing my job."
And thirdly, we are against the erosion of our personal freedoms using as justification the existence of some perceived or even real threat. Many of us find the threat of the increasing militarization of the police force to be a much greater "imminent threat" than that of some invasion of an outer force. Human beings are human beings, after all. And the armed to the teeth, trained in counter-personel-measures local cop can kill us just as dead as Jihadi John.
In short, in handing the responsibility for our own lives over to others, we have allowed the creation of ever-increasing dominance and like releasing a wee tiger kitty into a local scenery (so cute) we run the very real risk of a larger, meaner version of it coming back to bite us one day. "Treat Government like fire: Keep it small, keep it contained and keep an eye on it."