|Subject:||RE: [socialcredit] ---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'|
|Date:||Friday, April 7, 2006 08:43:11 (-0700)|
|From:||thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
I've only a few minutes this morning to reply before I'm off to work,
but I think the issue must be considered within the whole 'philosophy'
of Social Credit. Which is much more encompassing that simply 'monetary
reform'. As Peter Haines recently noted there is a substantial
difference between the rugged 'individualism' promoted by Ayn Rand, and
the matter of 'individuals' in freely chosen 'association' to more
readily achieve some intended result all those associating are satisfied
with, as explored by Douglas.
The difficulty with 'Party' politics is that your 'one' vote is trying
to decide more than 'one' thing at a time. You are being asked, under
our mutual system of Parliamentary 'democracy', to choose which
candidate will make your best 'representative', whether or not his
'Party' will make the best 'government', and his leader the best Prime
Minister, and to approve or reject in its entirety his Party's
'platform' or 'agenda'. This is a pretty tall order to ask that 'one'
vote to do.
Some have opined that we should have separate votes for our
'representative' MP, for who will be Prime Minister, (making him more
then a 'President' than a PM), through various means of 'proportional
representation' for a 'Party', and even for some of the issues directly
themselves through 'referenda'.
Personally, I think we need only elect a 'representative', but must
have some means of ensuring that that is exactly what he remains ~ a
'representative' ~ OUR 'representative'. Not a 'delegate'.
No man, it has been said, can have two masters. But our current 'party'
system forces an MP to have just that. And all too often nowadays the
one he will 'serve', (his 'party', his 'leader' and their 'agenda') and
the other he'll 'resent', (the 'people, the electorate who really put
him where he is to 'serve' them), will be reversed.
Until that's satisfactorily corrected I think it would be very dangerous
to allow any 'Government' to appropriate something on the strength of
all that's currently being decided by our 'one vote'.