"In today's democratic societies, organizations share power... through consultation, committees and consensus-building techniques. Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail... by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates" -Steven Harper
Was, or is he fulfilling his own condemnation or prophesy? Politics, as I have said before time and time again, is now so perfectly corrupted, that it fulfills the vision of Jimmy Hoffa when he stated "I don't want to control the government , I want to become it". I often make reference to past histrosities, ( I believe I may have just made that up, the word that is) and through the mire of left wielding suppositions, innuendo and sensationalism, my muses usually are also neatly and causally filed away with the rest of the left yielding crackpots. It doesn't really bother me that much anymore, and the frustration, I am slowly coming to a quasi-equilibrium like state of sustainable angst. After-all who that ever made a positive impact on the forward advancement of our society was ever inherently met with unanimous approval? Reflecting on history very few if any at all. Most were scorned belittled berated, outcast and in extreme case eliminated.
Then why do we seemingly invite tyrannical oppression into our lives, while shunning innovation and evolutionary thinking? The answer is two fold in nature. Comfort. We are, (again allegorically speaking) sedentary beings in an revolving world. There is a immediate unpredictability to each and every day. Subconsciously this frightens us, challenges our defensibility, questions our sustainability, the one against the all. Given this frightening scenario we are more than willing to seek shelter in the conscious domain of the society. The society to us presents the same symbolic shelter that our own-minds give us when interacting with others. It sets a stage for us to interact on, while also providing us the assuring reposed domain that we individually control. We give up willingly control of the greater sum, to maintain the sum of the lesser part, which is oneself. This is the motivating force behind the acceptance of monarchical rule, the mainstay of the ideal of democracy.
And what is wrong with that you may ask? Inherently nothing. It is in it's abuse where issue lies, as quoted by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton:
" Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If society had evolved as the original ideal had intended all would be a utopian paradise, but the great "I" got in the way. "We the people" tends to work on a portion of the people for a portion of the time. but soon, on declaration of opposing views the stability of the society is shaken or comes crashing down like a proverbial castle made of playing cards. What is a fledgling society to do? What if we created an official opposition wherein a body of duly appointed members could quell the questioning minds of the masses by keeping the authority of the ruling body in check. So parliament was formed. Without delving into the complexities of this scenario, lets be content to save those questionings for another time, another muse. What is critical to this muse is the division of the original ideal of comfort. Now we have (a) the initial relinquishment of self rule to the guardianship of the model of society as established by rule. (b) The establishment of a society as established by rule, including an official body in opposition to that rule. Democracy as we know it today. What is key here is not so much the variables (a) & (b) but that once again the self has been removed from the rule willingly. This is, I believe, why it works. And it brings to mind that well used Ben franklin quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Somewhere between the framing of our society based on the principles of democracy, and what is being bought as democracy today, is why we stand on the threshold of losing both our liberty and safety. The operative word here being "threshhold" We as a society have stood on the threshold of many theaters of activity during our ascent, the electronic frontier is no different. The challenge here maybe different from the killing theaters we have associated with before. The cost of non-conformance will be the same though, loss of your liberty, and control of your life. In Canada we willingly let our democracy fall into such a state of disrepair that even due process can be ignored by those that govern. Theft, bribery,incompetence,deception, vendettas, reckless conduct all have been absolved of responsibility to them that rule. But to us the bar has been raised, it would seem we need to once again be protected from the evils of the electronic frontier, by relinquishing our right to privacy so that those that cannot even govern themselves will be better equipped to defend our "WHAT" liberty? we gave it away Freedom? gave it away Privacy? gave it away .... If you believe you do deserve liberty, do deserve safety, don't give up, don't surrender, not without a fight. Take back what you still have before it is legislated away from you. Stand up!
No comments:
Post a Comment