“Education is our only political safety. Outside of this ark all is deluge.”
– Horace Mann
By EJ WickesOkay, I’m anti-union and pro-right to work. BUT – that said – as a public servant we do not vote for ourselves or special interest, like many of our representatives do. There is an unwritten contract, a chain of custody if you will that protects the will of the people. If these people come to show the desire of their WILL, that’s just as important as any “Chain of Evidence” procedure. Your vote is evidence of your will and when your will is disregarded that’s a violation of the Social Contract and the expectations of representation. The operative term here is representation. Representative of whom? You.
CHAIN OF EVIDENCE
Chain of evidence is a series of events which, when viewed in sequence, account for the actions of a person during a particular period of time or the location of a piece of evidence during a specified time period. It is usually associated with criminal cases.
I’ve heard all the arguments; most being that the general voting public is too ignorant about the issues to make an informed decision. It’s then up to the representative to make the decision in our best interest. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
With all the added attention given to “voter integrity” and voter registration these days, one would think that the rules on the lid of the game box might also apply to those forcing these initiatives through.
Let’s ask ourselves why our representatives would make that assumption. Start with our education system and what Horace Mann the Father of American Education once said: “Education is our only political safety. Outside of this ark all is deluge.” Consider how much political science, civics and government classes we have today and the answer is obvious.
The job of a leader is to educate his followers, with credible facts. Not opinions or sentiment. Representatives do not “run” away from their constituents. That’s why we have the vote. As a matter of fact, that’s the only line of defense we have left. When they take that away, when that trust is violated, what’s left to a self governing society?
“HEY, HOW YA’ DOIN’?”
Memos were passed around Citigroup. Lot’s of controversy there. They’re called the Plutonomy Memos. Some of you may have heard of them. For those who have not, If I may:
“Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich.”
This equal voting power seems to be a pretty serious concern for their plans. They go on to say:
“A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow Plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich.
Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society does not believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is a threat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with Plutonomy – judging by how tight electoral races are.
But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground.”
For the rest of the analysis follow this link.
Citigroup’s plutonomy memos
This also speaks to the monopoly over the economy that government and private sector collusion has wrought. This can only happen through the vehicles of governance. Our government. Our representatives. Our vote is “evidence” of our will. When that chain or custody of evidence is broken, that contract becomes null and void.