As IF Times

There’s an old saw that says “people get the government that they deserve”. The reason that old saws reflect wisdoms is that they are proven to be correct again and again through time. This is to say that while times change, people and the predictability of human nature does not.  In our current modern era, it’s conspicuously evident that a large contingent of heretofore ‘free and democratic’ states are experiencing situations which are anything but free and democratic.

If you observe the nations where the populace is most strongly at odds with government policies, it happens to be in the nations which were once most revered for their attitudes towards personal rights and freedoms. This includes France, The United Kingdom and Canada which have all devolved into states which oddly resemble those totalitarian regimes that they notionally abhor.  They resemble Orwellian states where freedoms are vaunted but not really allowed.

One may argue that all of these governments were democratically elected and thus, must represent the collective will of their people. This would be a specious argument since in the majority of cases, the selection of political parties is usually restricted to either a bad choice, or a worse one. As discussed in a previous commentary, the choice of political parties is really created by a very small contingent of political operatives.  Thus, the choices are for the people to be democratically oppressed by villain party A or by incompetent party B.

Recently in Canada for example, there were at least 2 representatives of the opposition party not in power who crossed the floor to side with the party that is presently in power.  This was probably not how the democratic process was designed to work.  Thus, if you had cast your vote to have someone represent your views, you’re out of luck.  Welcome to the Uniparty. We shall see if this finally engenders real outrage in a docile Canadian public.

But how do politicians push policies that are so out of sync with the wishes of their constituents?  We can all guess of course.  The usual influence of money and power are probably always at the root, that’s Occam’s Razor.  But no one votes to have their lives oppressed by excessive taxation, by restriction of their movements and speech and by curtailment of their activities.  I’m pretty sure no one votes to have their online activities monitored under threat of jail, for removal of long term property rights, for wanton taxation and for cancellation of legal protests.  Unless of course you’re a New Yorker.  Say what you want about their new Mayor Mamdani, but he was at least explicit on what his agenda and platform. He may be misguided, but he is not a liar.  He got the people to believe him.  Thus, the people got what they wanted; or deserved.

In the case of the other nations mentioned above, it’s pretty certain that no one ran on the platforms that they’re trying to enforce today. Politicians learn pretty quickly what works and what works is that you pander to soft sensibilities, promise everyone a chicken in every pot and then instead give them an old shoe once elected.  Thus is perpetuated the age-old game of bait and switch.  They promise to rid your home of pests, which sounds good, but then they kill your pets too,

Recently, nations with lesser traditions of ‘democracy’ have moved en masse against their oppressive overlords, with great effect.  We saw this in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru and now recently in Bulgaria. The fact that this hasn’t been replicated in the West is because of their traditions of lawful conduct.  Of course, the goalposts of ‘lawful conduct’ are moved all the time by Western governments, thus it may be just a matter of time.

The idea of democracy was that people in given society were to be given a voice in how the underlying society would be run. Thus, people who had a long term stake in a society would have people represent their views.  Somehow, this model has perversely turned the other way with elected people enacting programs directly at odds with their own constituents. This can be remedied if the populace decides that it must.  As is the case with any task that you hire someone to do, politicians must be made to explicitly state their goals and strategies.  ANY contradiction of these goals MUST be grounds for removal from office, not by the end of the term, but immediately. The people themselves must DEMAND this.  They cannot expect things to just work out.   Otherwise, they really do get the government they deserve.

link:  https://www.rebelnews.com/nova_scotia_premier_defends_right_to_wear_poppy_after_judges_demand_staffers_remove_them

One of the most annoying things in recent modern life is the phenomenon of “shrinkflation”.  As everyone has discovered by now, the price of everything has noticeably increased in our daily lives.  Why this has happened is a topic for another discussion, but suffice to say, it’s an issue that affects mostly everyone profoundly unless you are part of a government pay regime.

Let’s clarify what this is.  Consumers become more reluctant to purchase a given product because prices increase.  For example, a bag of potato chips that used to cost 3 dollars is now 4 dollars. People notice these things and thus, they avoid buying these more expensive chips.  What to do?  Well, a genius marketing fix was created.  Why not keep prices as they once were….but decrease the amount of product being sold in the package?  This stroke of genius has been embraced by all consumer companies and thus, producers maintain their saleability on store shelves.

If the producers were totally honest, they should re-label their products for transparency, thus M&M’s would simply be “M” and potato chips would be “some chips of potato”.  That’s not even mentioning the fact that many products aren’t even as they are implied.  Kraft single slices aren’t even cheese and thus, they are not allowed to label it as such. Thus, in this way, producers can hide from consumers the fact that the product that they’re accustomed to consuming is not the same as before.  It’s not exactly bait and switch, but it is a subterfuge nonetheless.

This genius technique of selling  much less of something than what is advertised is one which the political establishment has adopted with great success.  The best example of this is the nation once known as Canada.  I say once known, because the packaging has long outlived the actual contents.

Similar to the deceptive packaging described above, Canada is still regarded by some as a proud, free nation, welcoming to all and benefactor to the planet. In fact, the labelling on the package, aka the national anthem, states boldly, “the true north strong and free”. Who doesn’t recognize the unofficial icon of Canada which is a forthright, broad shouldered, Dudley Do Right of a Mountie. This used to represent the general “goodness” and decency of the nation, or as a former prime Minister invoked, “da Canadian values”.

The main pillar of Canadian-ness, if there actually is one, is that of a free,  lawful and peaceful society.

However, if there was any nation in the world best representing the phenomenon of “shrinkflation”, it’s Canada.  Recently, the premier of Nova Scotia had to go to court to fight for the right to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day, a long honored Canadian tradition. Ironically, this is the day on which Canadians honor those that fought and died in wars for the preservation of the free society in which we live today. It was a judge that wanted to prevent this. There is so much angst about offending virtually anybody who complains loudly enough that Canadians are willing to omit all traditional Canadian customs and values. Canadians are notorious for accommodating any and all sorts of complainers, in the name of inclusivity.

THE cornerstone of a free society is the sanctity of free speech. This liberty is specifically enshrined in the foundational document of the Constitution of The United States.  Because this is the foundation of any free society, it is also explicitly written in the Canadian Charter of Rights:

“…Section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media or communication” This right is recognize as a fundamental freedom and is protected against actions by all levels of government…”

Seems pretty clear, BUT WAIT!  There also follows a weasel clause which states:

“…it also allows for reasonable limits on expression if those limits are prescribed by law and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society…”

In essence, it’s free unless someone decides it’s not a good idea.  So it’s really only a strong suggestion.  As we know, any vacillations in wording on laws are like small holes in a house. Like rodents, politicians will find their way inside.  Thus, the nation has prohibitions on what can be said online under penalty of fines or jail for non-compliance.  This is a page taken from the parent nation, the UK.  Access to certain internet site are now blocked if they don’t conform to official government approval. When asked how Canadians would access information, they are referred to, you guessed it, the official government media outlet, the CBC.

Sounds like political shrinkflation to me. The Canada of today is not what they were selling even a decade ago.  At the very least, change the national anthem to reflect this reality.  Though I’m not sure how they’ll fit “the true north, weak and not really free” into music stanzas.