In the last Federal Election (May 2011) 61% of the registered voters actually voted, that leaves 39% of registered voters did not. Prior to 1997 federal election the average voter turn-out was in the 70% or higher. In 1997 election the turn-out had dropped to 67% and it has fallen every election since to 61% in 2011. This pattern shows a stead decline in voter turn-out and the Citizens becoming disenfranchised from their own GOVERNMENT.These percentages do not incorporate the eligible voters that may not have registered, there are more disenfranchised citizens then just the 39% registered voters that did not vote.
We need to explore ways to make our Government more responsive to the Citizens that it Governs.
Today one would have more access to the Government if one was a member of the Political Party that has the majority of the House Seats, then a non-affiliated Citizen. We are Governed by Political Parties and not by the elected representatives and it is in the best interests of the Political Party that is the priority, not the Country or the Citizens. When an elected representative speaks on behalf of the Citizens that elected the person and it is against the policy of the Party, the representative is often kicked-out of the Party and sits as a independent. It is the Political Party that controls the elected representatives, not the Citizens that they are elected to represent.
It is this type of control that the Political Parties have over our elected representatives that frustrates and demoralizes the Citizens in their Government. Even with the Citizens that do vote, it is often a vote against a Party then a vote in support of a Party. The Political Parties themselves have sacrificed much of their philosophy with the sole objective of winning a majority of seats in the House.
It can be argued that our Government is not a representation of the People, that it is a dictatorship of differing philosophies. Even these differing philosophies have become blurred in the all out effort to WIN A MAJORITY. The Parties will say and do anything that will help them win!
It has become a POWER GAME and one of WINNING AT ALL COSTS! The issue of actually GOVERNING the country in the interests of the CITIZENS has been lost in this obsession of WINNING.
In order to change this process we need to defuse the POWER STRUCTURE. We need to de-centerlize the POWER STRUCTURE so that the POWER is not so easily controlled. We also need to bring our Government process into the 21st Century.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Centralized Government
We have a Centralized Government where all the Governing powers are CENTRALIZED in key centers - Victoria for the Provincial Government and Ottawa for the Federal Government. Concentrating the power of Government in these centers greatly disenfranchises the CITIZENSHIP from their own Government.
It is this CENTRALIZATION of the Government that encourages the West vs East in our Federal Government, where the West feels that its interests are not represented by the Federal Government. Even in the Provincial Government being centered in Victoria the citizens of the province feel that the larger populated areas are the only concerns of the Government - one needs to live in the Lower Mainland to have their interests considered by the Government.
This CENTRALIZATION of our Government is only beneficial to the Politicians and the Bureaucrats. It is easier to keep control over the Government when it is Centralized in this manner and the Bureaucrats can all be centered in the more popular centers. The average Citizen becomes so removed from the Government that they do not see any REAL connection with the Government, it becomes some sort of a different entity that has little or no connection to them.
In order to bring DEMOCRACY to our Government we need to DE-CENTRALIZE the Government. We need to bring the power of Government to a more LOCALIZED form, where the CITIZENS can actually partake in their own Governing.
It is this CENTRALIZATION of the Government that encourages the West vs East in our Federal Government, where the West feels that its interests are not represented by the Federal Government. Even in the Provincial Government being centered in Victoria the citizens of the province feel that the larger populated areas are the only concerns of the Government - one needs to live in the Lower Mainland to have their interests considered by the Government.
This CENTRALIZATION of our Government is only beneficial to the Politicians and the Bureaucrats. It is easier to keep control over the Government when it is Centralized in this manner and the Bureaucrats can all be centered in the more popular centers. The average Citizen becomes so removed from the Government that they do not see any REAL connection with the Government, it becomes some sort of a different entity that has little or no connection to them.
In order to bring DEMOCRACY to our Government we need to DE-CENTRALIZE the Government. We need to bring the power of Government to a more LOCALIZED form, where the CITIZENS can actually partake in their own Governing.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Citizen's Assembly
The last two posts talks about Minority Governs and the issue of Electoral Reform. In these discussion was mentioned the creation of the Citizen's Assembly. I want to focus on this idea of a Citizen's Assembly.
The idea of forming a Assembly of regular Citizens with a variety of ages and a mixture of politically aware and political novices to focus on a social issue is awesome. To have the findings of such a Assembly put before the CITIZENSHIP in a referendum is truly DEMOCRACY in ACTION. In order for such Assembly to truly work there can be no POLITICIANS OR BUREAUCRATS included in the Assembly, the members must have a true representative of the young, middle age, and the elders and a true mixture of experience.
Such a Assembly would do more than to deal with social issues, it incorporates the CITIZENS in the actual GOVERNING of our society. It could function in much the same way as Juries are selected. Such a system would go along way in the general public reclaiming their social governing, it goes to OWNERSHIP of our governing system. Currently the general public only have a vote every 4 years and 40% of the public do not even vote then. The general citizenship does not feel a true part of or have any real affect on our GOVERNMENT. This type of Assembly will go along way in the CITIZENS reclaiming their GOVERNMENT.
The idea of forming a Assembly of regular Citizens with a variety of ages and a mixture of politically aware and political novices to focus on a social issue is awesome. To have the findings of such a Assembly put before the CITIZENSHIP in a referendum is truly DEMOCRACY in ACTION. In order for such Assembly to truly work there can be no POLITICIANS OR BUREAUCRATS included in the Assembly, the members must have a true representative of the young, middle age, and the elders and a true mixture of experience.
Such a Assembly would do more than to deal with social issues, it incorporates the CITIZENS in the actual GOVERNING of our society. It could function in much the same way as Juries are selected. Such a system would go along way in the general public reclaiming their social governing, it goes to OWNERSHIP of our governing system. Currently the general public only have a vote every 4 years and 40% of the public do not even vote then. The general citizenship does not feel a true part of or have any real affect on our GOVERNMENT. This type of Assembly will go along way in the CITIZENS reclaiming their GOVERNMENT.
Minortiy Governs 2
In the last post I talked about the BC-STV Electoral Reform referendum that took place in 2005. In the last post I mentioned INCORRECTLY that there had never been any further referendum on this in the last 6 years. On further research I have found that this same Electoral Reform was again put before the voters in a 2009 referendum. The result of this referendum was only 39.9% in SUPPORT of the BC-STV.
I was very surprised to discover this 2009 referendum on BC-STV. I have no memory of the BC-STV being apart of the last election. I do not know why I have no memory of this. I was very much aware of the 2005 referendum and remembering when it just failed to pass and wanting it to return in a future referendum. How I could have missed the 2009 referendum when I was looking forward to it surprises me. If I missed it how many others missed it too? From the results of the 2009 referendum 39.9% vs 57.69% would indicated a few others may have missed the 2009 referendum.
Why did I miss it?
In the 2005 referendum there was a lot of buzz about it and a level of excitement in possibly making some serious changes to our Governing System. I admit that I do not see the BC-STV as the savior or a perfect system or it may not be all that good of a system. However, to make such fundamental change to our system needs to begin somewhere and the BC-STV would have been a perfect beginning. The Citizen Assembly that was setup to make such a change is something that is also important in bring TRUE DEMOCRACY to our system. Where a Assembly of CITIZENS, not politicians or bureaucrats but a wide range of CITIZENS are EMPOWERED to make recommendations to the CITIZENSHIP. It was the PROCESS that is important here, almost more important than the BC-STV itself.
In 2009 the BC-STV was buried, very little or no publicity on it, other political issues were hyped up and it became the old 'shell-game'. The POWERS THAT BE moved the focus away from the BC-STV and quietly put the issue on the ballot without much ado. The fact that in 2005 the BC-STV almost passed scared the hell out of the POWERS THAT BE.
Why did the BC-STV fail?
There are 3 main reasons that I see why the BC-STV failed in 2005 and in 2009:
I was very surprised to discover this 2009 referendum on BC-STV. I have no memory of the BC-STV being apart of the last election. I do not know why I have no memory of this. I was very much aware of the 2005 referendum and remembering when it just failed to pass and wanting it to return in a future referendum. How I could have missed the 2009 referendum when I was looking forward to it surprises me. If I missed it how many others missed it too? From the results of the 2009 referendum 39.9% vs 57.69% would indicated a few others may have missed the 2009 referendum.
Why did I miss it?
In the 2005 referendum there was a lot of buzz about it and a level of excitement in possibly making some serious changes to our Governing System. I admit that I do not see the BC-STV as the savior or a perfect system or it may not be all that good of a system. However, to make such fundamental change to our system needs to begin somewhere and the BC-STV would have been a perfect beginning. The Citizen Assembly that was setup to make such a change is something that is also important in bring TRUE DEMOCRACY to our system. Where a Assembly of CITIZENS, not politicians or bureaucrats but a wide range of CITIZENS are EMPOWERED to make recommendations to the CITIZENSHIP. It was the PROCESS that is important here, almost more important than the BC-STV itself.
In 2009 the BC-STV was buried, very little or no publicity on it, other political issues were hyped up and it became the old 'shell-game'. The POWERS THAT BE moved the focus away from the BC-STV and quietly put the issue on the ballot without much ado. The fact that in 2005 the BC-STV almost passed scared the hell out of the POWERS THAT BE.
Why did the BC-STV fail?
There are 3 main reasons that I see why the BC-STV failed in 2005 and in 2009:
- Our political climate is very much in a polarized state. The mere fact that Gordon Campbell had organized the CITIZEN ASSEMBLY and the focus on Electoral Reform would have turn a percentage of the citizenship against the whole process. It did not matter what the issue is, just that Campbell was responsible for it would be enough to turn some away.
- Fear of Change. The old saying - 'Better the devil you know than the one you don't' - is always a issue when making such fundamental changes.The 4 years that separated the two referendums (2005 - 2009) caused some to concede to their FEAR.
- Down playing and burying the BC-STV on the 2009 referendum and the distraction of the voters onto other issues allowed the referendum to slip through with a minimum of exposure.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Minority Governs
In our current system the MINORITY GOVERNS. In a TRUE DEMOCRACY the MAJORITY GOVERNS. This last election is not the only sign of this system of the MINORITY GOVERNS, with the 39% voting for the Conservatives that formed a MAJORITY in the HOUSE with 54% of the seats.
In May of 2005 there was a referendum for Electoral Reform that was the BC-STV and 57% of the voters voted in SUPPORT of the Reform (It needed 60% to actual come into being, which I support as a large Majority should be required to make such a fundamental change) and 97% of the constituencies were in SUPPORT. In the Throne Speech in September 2005 the government promised to bring this referendum on Electoral Reform back to the people. It has been over 6 years and this Electoral Reform has not been heard of again.
The POWERS THAT BE do not want any Electoral Reform they are very happy with this Minority Governs system. I believe that the BC-STV scared the hell out of them and want the whole idea of REFORM dead.
I do believe that we need a LARGE MAJORITY (60%) in order to make fundamental changes to our system. With a SIMPLE MAJORITY we can alienate too many and it can seriously divide the citizens of the country. Saying this the showing of the Majority in the BC-STV referendum was enough that it needed to be brought back before the citizens for another vote. The fact that it has been buried and no one wants to hear of it demonstrates a very strong DISRESPECT to the MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS.
In May of 2005 there was a referendum for Electoral Reform that was the BC-STV and 57% of the voters voted in SUPPORT of the Reform (It needed 60% to actual come into being, which I support as a large Majority should be required to make such a fundamental change) and 97% of the constituencies were in SUPPORT. In the Throne Speech in September 2005 the government promised to bring this referendum on Electoral Reform back to the people. It has been over 6 years and this Electoral Reform has not been heard of again.
The POWERS THAT BE do not want any Electoral Reform they are very happy with this Minority Governs system. I believe that the BC-STV scared the hell out of them and want the whole idea of REFORM dead.
I do believe that we need a LARGE MAJORITY (60%) in order to make fundamental changes to our system. With a SIMPLE MAJORITY we can alienate too many and it can seriously divide the citizens of the country. Saying this the showing of the Majority in the BC-STV referendum was enough that it needed to be brought back before the citizens for another vote. The fact that it has been buried and no one wants to hear of it demonstrates a very strong DISRESPECT to the MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Defining Government
We need to REDEFINE what Government IS and above all the LIMITATIONS of Government.
If the economical activities in Europe have any lessons to learn we need to come to the understanding that the Government cannot DO EVERY THING. It is too costly and has a LIMITED ability to do EVERY THING. In order to define the LIMIT of Government we need to also define the ROLE and the RESPONSIBILITY of the INDIVIDUAL.
As an example of what I mean lets look at the issue of HEALTH. In Canada we have a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system. We expect and even demand that ALL of our HEALTH issues should be paid for by the Government. It has gotten to the point where the Government is spending almost half of their total income on HEALTH CARE, and it is not enough.
I worked in the Health Field for 18 years and active in my Health Care Union, with the NDP, Liberal and the old Social Credit party in power. Every single year we were screaming that more money needed to be spent on HEALTH CARE. There was never enough money! It did not matter what Political Party was in power. One thing I learned over these years is that MONEY is not the answer, what we need to do is to refine what the Government is responsible for in HEALTH CARE, and what is the INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility.
We need to UNDERSTAND the Government is not responsible for ALL of our HEALTH ISSUES, our wants and desires. We need to reach a understanding of what the Government should be responsible for and what can be reasonably expected. LIFE THREATENING Health Issues needs to be supported by Government UNIVERSAL CARE. This is a good place to start and how far it is expanded is the subject of discussion.
The issue of HEALTH CARE is just an example of what I mean by REDEFINING the role of Government. This needs to be expanded to every area of Government.
If the economical activities in Europe have any lessons to learn we need to come to the understanding that the Government cannot DO EVERY THING. It is too costly and has a LIMITED ability to do EVERY THING. In order to define the LIMIT of Government we need to also define the ROLE and the RESPONSIBILITY of the INDIVIDUAL.
As an example of what I mean lets look at the issue of HEALTH. In Canada we have a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system. We expect and even demand that ALL of our HEALTH issues should be paid for by the Government. It has gotten to the point where the Government is spending almost half of their total income on HEALTH CARE, and it is not enough.
I worked in the Health Field for 18 years and active in my Health Care Union, with the NDP, Liberal and the old Social Credit party in power. Every single year we were screaming that more money needed to be spent on HEALTH CARE. There was never enough money! It did not matter what Political Party was in power. One thing I learned over these years is that MONEY is not the answer, what we need to do is to refine what the Government is responsible for in HEALTH CARE, and what is the INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility.
We need to UNDERSTAND the Government is not responsible for ALL of our HEALTH ISSUES, our wants and desires. We need to reach a understanding of what the Government should be responsible for and what can be reasonably expected. LIFE THREATENING Health Issues needs to be supported by Government UNIVERSAL CARE. This is a good place to start and how far it is expanded is the subject of discussion.
The issue of HEALTH CARE is just an example of what I mean by REDEFINING the role of Government. This needs to be expanded to every area of Government.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Taxes, taxes and more taxes
The HST or PST & GST and now they are talking about adding another .02 on the price of gas to pay for some more rapid transit. When does the taxation stop? We are now paying more in taxes than we have ever paid and we are getting less in services than we ever have, this does not compute. The teachers are now bargaining and are wanting more, next the health care workers will be bargaining and wanting more.
Our whole taxation system needs a desperate restructuring. We need to restructure our Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax and all the government fees and licenses. The different levels of taxation is also in need of restructure, Municipal, Provincial and Federal. Without a restructure of our Taxation system there is no end in how much we will be paying in Taxes. We already pay half our income to some form of Taxation, it is not until June each year that we reach the point of paying our taxes. At this rate it will not be long until we will be paying taxes until August each year.
Most of the argument of the increase in Taxes is that we need to pay for all the government services that we demand of government. We continue to pay more but the education system is worse than it has been, the health system is also worse than it has been, we pay more but we do not see any improvements. It is time to understand that throwing more money (more taxes) at the government does not mean that we have better government or better services. Money is not the issue here.
In the old days the individual taxes were allocated to specific services - Gas Tax was dedicated to Transportation, road maintenance, bridges, new roads, etc. - Tobacco and Alcohol Taxes was dedicated to the Health system - Income Tax was to general revenue. Now everything goes to General Revenue and there is no accounting for any section of government. Every section of government has to fight for a share of the General Revenue if they need it or not. Whatever section of government is better at getting a bigger share of the pie, if they need it or not, robes another section that may need the funds more. This leads to some sections of the government being over funded and others under funded. The under funded yells about needing more tax dollars that is passed onto to us. This system does not work!
In order to begin to restructure our Taxation system we need to come to terms with what we demand of the Government and the services the government provides. The first thing to evaluate is the general 'universality' of the major government services. In order to explain what I mean by 'universality' of these services lets look at the government's pension services - CPP and Old Age Security plans.
Everyone who has worked in Canada has paid into the CPP funds, as it is a government retirement payment program that is universal to all individual's working in Canada. When the individual reaches 65 years old they can retire and collect a pension from CPP, this includes EVERYONE. This pension is not that much as it maxis to about $12,000 per year or just under. However, EVERYONE is entitled to this even if they do not need this income. Recently in the news there is a report of a top government corporation executive was given a pension of $300,000 per year. This I find to be high, but the real crime comes when the executive reaches 65 and starts to collect $312,000 per year. There is no reason for this executive to draw upon the funds of the CPP, to do so is pure GREED.
CPP was set up to create a minimum base for retirees, so individuals that reach the retire age can have a minimum to support their elder years. I am setting a arbitrary rate of $60,000 per year, anyone with a pension of $60,000 or more should not be entitled to the CPP plan, it is not needed. Most individuals in our society do not make enough income in their working life to create a pension plan, this is what CPP was created for. It is this that the plan should be used for.
This is just an example of what I mean of the 'universality' of the majority of the government services and the whole concept of 'universality' needs to be re-evaluated before we can start to restructure our Taxation system. We also need to re-define what we expect of Government and what is the responsibility of the individual. The question is - do we have the courage to do what is needed? Or are we going to continue on the path we are on until it completely fails (Greece and other countries that are close to bankruptcy).
Our whole taxation system needs a desperate restructuring. We need to restructure our Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax and all the government fees and licenses. The different levels of taxation is also in need of restructure, Municipal, Provincial and Federal. Without a restructure of our Taxation system there is no end in how much we will be paying in Taxes. We already pay half our income to some form of Taxation, it is not until June each year that we reach the point of paying our taxes. At this rate it will not be long until we will be paying taxes until August each year.
Most of the argument of the increase in Taxes is that we need to pay for all the government services that we demand of government. We continue to pay more but the education system is worse than it has been, the health system is also worse than it has been, we pay more but we do not see any improvements. It is time to understand that throwing more money (more taxes) at the government does not mean that we have better government or better services. Money is not the issue here.
In the old days the individual taxes were allocated to specific services - Gas Tax was dedicated to Transportation, road maintenance, bridges, new roads, etc. - Tobacco and Alcohol Taxes was dedicated to the Health system - Income Tax was to general revenue. Now everything goes to General Revenue and there is no accounting for any section of government. Every section of government has to fight for a share of the General Revenue if they need it or not. Whatever section of government is better at getting a bigger share of the pie, if they need it or not, robes another section that may need the funds more. This leads to some sections of the government being over funded and others under funded. The under funded yells about needing more tax dollars that is passed onto to us. This system does not work!
In order to begin to restructure our Taxation system we need to come to terms with what we demand of the Government and the services the government provides. The first thing to evaluate is the general 'universality' of the major government services. In order to explain what I mean by 'universality' of these services lets look at the government's pension services - CPP and Old Age Security plans.
Everyone who has worked in Canada has paid into the CPP funds, as it is a government retirement payment program that is universal to all individual's working in Canada. When the individual reaches 65 years old they can retire and collect a pension from CPP, this includes EVERYONE. This pension is not that much as it maxis to about $12,000 per year or just under. However, EVERYONE is entitled to this even if they do not need this income. Recently in the news there is a report of a top government corporation executive was given a pension of $300,000 per year. This I find to be high, but the real crime comes when the executive reaches 65 and starts to collect $312,000 per year. There is no reason for this executive to draw upon the funds of the CPP, to do so is pure GREED.
CPP was set up to create a minimum base for retirees, so individuals that reach the retire age can have a minimum to support their elder years. I am setting a arbitrary rate of $60,000 per year, anyone with a pension of $60,000 or more should not be entitled to the CPP plan, it is not needed. Most individuals in our society do not make enough income in their working life to create a pension plan, this is what CPP was created for. It is this that the plan should be used for.
This is just an example of what I mean of the 'universality' of the majority of the government services and the whole concept of 'universality' needs to be re-evaluated before we can start to restructure our Taxation system. We also need to re-define what we expect of Government and what is the responsibility of the individual. The question is - do we have the courage to do what is needed? Or are we going to continue on the path we are on until it completely fails (Greece and other countries that are close to bankruptcy).
Friday, May 27, 2011
Laws
The first thing to make clear is the difference between Laws & Rules. Laws are somewhat more fundamental and not easily manipulated. Rules are much more flexible and manipulated. We can see this issue of Laws when we apply them to the area of Science – Law of Gravity, Cause & Effect, and other Laws that govern our Physical Reality. These Laws that govern our Physical Reality are Laws that we ALL know and knowing these Laws allow us to function in this Physical Reality safely and effectively. These Laws define our Physical Reality.
The Laws of Society need to be at this same fundamental level. The Laws of Society need to define the Society. This definition of Society can only be established by the MEMBERS of the Society, not from the LEADERS. It is the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of Society that need to establish these Laws, in order for the LEADERS to have their Leadership defined. Once these basic Laws are set they can only be changed or altered by a LARGE MAJORITY of the Members of Society (at least 80%). The reason for such a large majority is that the Laws define the Society and EVERYONE in the Society. Such a fundamental change to the Society needs to be supported by a LARGE majority or the society may splinter and become fractured.
Laws of Society:
The Society is built by the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of the Society. It is with this understanding that a strong and productive Society is only possible with strong and empowered INDIVIDUALS.
Normally when we talk about Laws we think of the Laws that the police enforce and the courts enforce. These are NOT the true Laws of our Society. In Canada the Laws of our Society are found in our Charter of Rights & Freedoms, in the USA it is the Bill of Rights. The reason I refer to these documents as the Laws of our Society is the fact that these documents override any Laws passed by the politicians. Any Law that is passed by the politicians that violates the Charter of Rights & Freedoms the Law is NULL AND VOID AND HAS NO AUTHORITY.
The Laws that the police and courts deal with are more associated with the RULES of Society and will be blogged about in the next blog topic. This blog topic on LAWS is more associated with the issues of our Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Our Charter of Rights & Freedoms is a good place to start but it needs more work and to be more prominent in our Society.
Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedom:
This is a good starting point as it outlines the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS within Canadian Society. It deals with – Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights and Equality Rights – for ALL CANADIANS (MALE AND FEMALE). The major defect resides in the RESPONSIBILITY of each CANADIAN to the Society.
In order for the INDIVIDUAL to feel a part of the Society there needs to be some RESPONSIBILITY of the Individual in active participation within the Society. This is where the Charter of Rights & Freedoms is silent.
In order for the INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of Society to actually take a level of ownership in the Society there needs to be a level of RESPONSIBILITY on the MEMBER for the Society. The Members’ Responsibility is in how the Society is Governed.
Every Society needs a mechanism for operating as a united group with a common interest and intention, this we call GOVERNING (GOVERNMENT). Each Member of the Society NEEDS to have a level of direct involvement and responsible for this GOVERNANCE. This is how the MEMBERS define their OWNERSHIP of the Society. Without this OWNERSHIP the member begins to feel disenfranchised from the Society and the Society becomes fractured.
The LAWS of Society is not just the Rights & Freedoms of the Individual, but also the DUTY that is required by the Individual to the Society. There is another document that speaks a little on such DUTY.
Declaration of Independence – states in part “...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government ...” in another part of the same document “...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed- ...” In the first quote it refers to “their duty” their – referring to the members of the society and duty – as their responsibility. In the second quote it talks about how it is only with the “consent” of the members of society that authorizes the Governing Powers the power to govern. Without the approval of the Members of Society the Governing Power has no Power. This document also mentions some of the basic rights of all the Members of Society – “...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” – for ALL MEMBERS and balanced with the MEMBERS’ DUTY.
Purpose of these LAWS:
There are many different TYPES of Societies. These LAWS define the TYPE of Society the MEMBERS want to CREATE. These LAWS address the RIGHTS & FREEDOMS of the Individual within the Society PLUS the DUTY of the Individual to the Society.
The next subject is RULES...
The Laws of Society need to be at this same fundamental level. The Laws of Society need to define the Society. This definition of Society can only be established by the MEMBERS of the Society, not from the LEADERS. It is the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of Society that need to establish these Laws, in order for the LEADERS to have their Leadership defined. Once these basic Laws are set they can only be changed or altered by a LARGE MAJORITY of the Members of Society (at least 80%). The reason for such a large majority is that the Laws define the Society and EVERYONE in the Society. Such a fundamental change to the Society needs to be supported by a LARGE majority or the society may splinter and become fractured.
Laws of Society:
The Society is built by the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of the Society. It is with this understanding that a strong and productive Society is only possible with strong and empowered INDIVIDUALS.
Normally when we talk about Laws we think of the Laws that the police enforce and the courts enforce. These are NOT the true Laws of our Society. In Canada the Laws of our Society are found in our Charter of Rights & Freedoms, in the USA it is the Bill of Rights. The reason I refer to these documents as the Laws of our Society is the fact that these documents override any Laws passed by the politicians. Any Law that is passed by the politicians that violates the Charter of Rights & Freedoms the Law is NULL AND VOID AND HAS NO AUTHORITY.
The Laws that the police and courts deal with are more associated with the RULES of Society and will be blogged about in the next blog topic. This blog topic on LAWS is more associated with the issues of our Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Our Charter of Rights & Freedoms is a good place to start but it needs more work and to be more prominent in our Society.
Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedom:
This is a good starting point as it outlines the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS within Canadian Society. It deals with – Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights and Equality Rights – for ALL CANADIANS (MALE AND FEMALE). The major defect resides in the RESPONSIBILITY of each CANADIAN to the Society.
In order for the INDIVIDUAL to feel a part of the Society there needs to be some RESPONSIBILITY of the Individual in active participation within the Society. This is where the Charter of Rights & Freedoms is silent.
In order for the INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of Society to actually take a level of ownership in the Society there needs to be a level of RESPONSIBILITY on the MEMBER for the Society. The Members’ Responsibility is in how the Society is Governed.
Every Society needs a mechanism for operating as a united group with a common interest and intention, this we call GOVERNING (GOVERNMENT). Each Member of the Society NEEDS to have a level of direct involvement and responsible for this GOVERNANCE. This is how the MEMBERS define their OWNERSHIP of the Society. Without this OWNERSHIP the member begins to feel disenfranchised from the Society and the Society becomes fractured.
The LAWS of Society is not just the Rights & Freedoms of the Individual, but also the DUTY that is required by the Individual to the Society. There is another document that speaks a little on such DUTY.
Declaration of Independence – states in part “...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government ...” in another part of the same document “...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed- ...” In the first quote it refers to “their duty” their – referring to the members of the society and duty – as their responsibility. In the second quote it talks about how it is only with the “consent” of the members of society that authorizes the Governing Powers the power to govern. Without the approval of the Members of Society the Governing Power has no Power. This document also mentions some of the basic rights of all the Members of Society – “...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” – for ALL MEMBERS and balanced with the MEMBERS’ DUTY.
Purpose of these LAWS:
There are many different TYPES of Societies. These LAWS define the TYPE of Society the MEMBERS want to CREATE. These LAWS address the RIGHTS & FREEDOMS of the Individual within the Society PLUS the DUTY of the Individual to the Society.
The next subject is RULES...
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Laws, Rules & Regulations
The next few subjects that I will be blogging on here is on "Laws, Rules & Regulations". Each of these topics have enough attached to them that they need a blog entry of their own. We often see Laws & Rules as the same thing, that there is not much that is different in these two. I suggest there is a world of difference between these two.
Laws - in short is what defines our SOCIETY and needs to be at a minimum and completely known and fully understood by EVERYONE.
Rules - are most effective when EVERYONE can use them to support themselves and be able to use the Rules as a guideline. If Rules are used to LIMIT the individual the Rule is no longer effective.
Regulations - are how our Laws and Rules are implemented in the most effective manner.
The following blog posts will go much deeper into each of these topics with the first being the topic of Laws.
Laws - in short is what defines our SOCIETY and needs to be at a minimum and completely known and fully understood by EVERYONE.
Rules - are most effective when EVERYONE can use them to support themselves and be able to use the Rules as a guideline. If Rules are used to LIMIT the individual the Rule is no longer effective.
Regulations - are how our Laws and Rules are implemented in the most effective manner.
The following blog posts will go much deeper into each of these topics with the first being the topic of Laws.
Monday, February 14, 2011
How we pick our LEADERS
NDP & Liberal LEADERSHIP?
It is a strange time with both of the major provincial political parties are searching for a new LEADER. In the current political scene both the NDP and the Liberals are searching for a LEADER that can UNITE the different fractions within each of the PARTIES.
The NDP are searching for someone that can UNITE the far LEFT of the SOCIALISTS and the more MODERATE members that are part of the PARTY. The LIBERALS are searching for someone that can UNITE the more conservative members with the more Liberal members that are part of the PARTY. Is this ability to UNITE the PARTY a key component for a LEADER?
In the last few months we have seen both of these PARTIES sabotage their own LEADER. The question is - can any party govern when the party is so internally splintered? The governing of our Province becomes secondary to govern their party. I am not much for POLITICAL PARTIES as they become too focused on their own PARTY issues and the SOCIETY is secondary to the PARTY.
I think it is a starting point to understand how we define what a LEADER is before we elect a LEADER. A true LEADER is a lot more than just someone that UNITIES the different fractions of SOCIETY or a PARTY. The biggest sole component that describes a LEADER is TRUST! In today's political climate this attribute is sorrily lacking. In the old days LAWYERS were always viewed with skepticism, the LAWYER has been replaced by the POLITICIAN.
TRUST:
Why has our TRUST in POLITICIANS become so low? POLITICIANS have changed from being mainly promoting a philosophy of how we should be governed, to a single objective of being ELECTED. It is their OBSESSION to being ELECTED into POWER that trumps any philosophy they may have.If we take Harper as an example, our Federal Leader (Prime Minister). Harper is the leader of the Federal Conservative Party and is generally known as a Conservative with a capital "C", meaning his philosophy is far right. In order to be elected (even a minority state) he needed to compromise on his Conservative philosophy. In order to stay in POWER Harper needs to compromise his far right philosophy closer to the middle of the political philosophy. The question is - How much TRUST can we have in a LEADER that compromises his philosophy in order to stay in POWER?
Another more local example is the NDP leadership. One of the main reasons given for disposing of their LEADER - Carol James - is that she has been unable to lead the NDP to WIN the seat of POWER in the last 3 political elections. The issue of her philosophy being too Left or too Right was not as important as her inability to WIN. The NDP membership is solely interested in WINNING POWER! How much TRUST can we have with this type of obsession to WIN?
This OBSESSION is the reason why I have much more TRUST in INDEPENDENT candidates when it comes to political support. The INDEPENDENT candidate can win a seat but not the POWER OF GOVERNMENT. This gives me some TRUST that the candidate is running for office for the RIGHT REASON.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)