
I think someone else should have a turn to play in the sandbox. The Conservatives are in again, with a minority government.
Here's just one 'policy' I disagree with: the traditional family view--a view which exists in imagination only. The Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, in 2006 asked if the issue of same-sex marriage should be re-opened to support the traditional definition of marriage. The motion was opposed and dropped. What is even more beyond my scope of understanding is why people vote for a party that wastes time on issues that they need only to administer, period. The situation was an infringement of human rights, it's simple and doesn't take a lot of time to work your head around. When will society realize that an appointed party is to administer the desires of the people, ensure equality and for major decisions, demand referendums. For example,
MPs could ask: "Should Canada go to war? Lets ask the people we represent, it's not up to us."
The only reason I can think of why people vote Conservative in Canada is to get that extra 50 dollars a pay cheque, and don't care about much else.
This leads me to an idea riddled with objections put forward by Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979). He argued that advanced modern society has indoctrinated the general population to such an extent that people no longer know what his or her real needs and desires are, thus denying people genuine freedom. This is achieved through advertising, never-ending compulsion for comforts and affluence. For example, the choice to buy between 10 different brands of soap is not real freedom, it is meaningless. Or freedom of speech: let em yap, nobody is listening, but it makes em feel better. And the need to toil to keep consuming, causes less freedom because it distracts people from more 'important' kinds of freedom. This is why governments allow drug trafficking, it is good to have a portion of society addicted to drugs, they are distracted by their own plight, and the kickbacks and taxes are good for the economy. (Years ago I spoke to an economist about this and she thought I was nuts..., go figure, what the hell did she learn in school for six years, obviously nothing about global economics).
I know it's easy to think yes, this makes sense, but with a little care it is apparent that the state of affairs is more complicated. Simone
Weil talked about complacency, perhaps complacency and being unmindful are what inhibits genuine freedom...and what is the definition of freedom exactly? What a tangled web we weave.
Photo, source found here.