|
|
The answer is clearly No. But I will go on into a long rant about why and perhaps what can be done about it. It is not "our" government, because no one alive today was asked for their consent to form a voluntary union at any point in their lives. Were you ever approached and asked for your signature on a piece of paper saying you give up all freedom of choice over your own life, body, and money if 51% of other signers happen to disagree with you? Because no such paper was ever shown to me.
At best, the people living today have been conscripted into a government through the vague magic of the "social contract", and the only reason they identify any State as representing their own interests is because they've been raised by unwitting apologists of this system (both in the U.S. and in practically every other territorial monopoly on the planet) since they were old enough to walk.
I must also state that I don't feel that there is one single person in government that represents me! That should be clear if you read all that I have to say here... There is no one representing those who wish to have the right to die, those who would be marijuana smokers, not to wear seatbelts or crash helmets. Who is represented by our present form of Democracy is the few the proud the rich. The only thing our politicians care about is the next election and who will pay for it.
The difference between representation (Agency) and political representation is clear in the laws of this country. You can sue an Agent (Lawyer, Union Rep, Employee) if they don't follow the wishes of those being represented. You can not sue a government official for lying about his intentions during a campaign!
If the Representative is an agent of those who voted for him, he clearly does not represent those whom voted against him. Furthermore since we have a districting system the popular vote is never represented in the outcome. What?
Legislators being human will do whatever they can get away with to enhance their incomes and make their lives better. Thus they always represent themselves first and foremost.
In The mid 1800's Pierre Joseph Proudhon presented what he called "a paradox of voting" Because the loser in any seat gets nothing the majority can lose in a districting system. (This is why you learn about Gerrymandering in school). Proudhon offered this query: Suppose you have 3 districts each with one hundred voters. In districts 1 and 2 55 voters vote for a candidate or position. However in district 3 only 10 vote for and 90 against. You now have 180 against and 100 for but the candidate or proposition carries because the representative body is 2 to 1 for it.
The time has come for direct Representative democracy, people voting on the laws, we have the technology, Perot campaigned for it in 1992, but the Washington machine will not give up the ship easily. Besides you will still have the overrule of the majority stepping on minority issues. I propose that any issue that is involved with personal choices (Like Drugs, right to die, wearing seat belts) should only need a ten percent acceptance to be legal, or a 90% intolerance to be considered illegal.
Does your Representative represent you?
What can we do for now?
Back to War on Drugs
Posted by Brad Stewart on Saturday, December 26, 2015
random links transporting dazed and confused free range arachnids to insane asylums since MVM
oranges famous admits to smoking depression Last help running
patriot act campaign corruption in government taxes oxymoron rabble over canyon weeds
elvis big brother bomb squad gypsy cannabis styx birds time zones 2020 dump trump
stop the wars french drinking human condition future movement free speech convert
bill of rights human condition twilight zone time natural 2012 2016 punch
