As IF Times

One of the most common justifications for any and most political policies today is that such implementation is to ensure ‘safety’. This seems to be the method by which all politicians have figured out is a means of passing laws which would otherwise be unpalatable.

The most famous justification came in the aftermath of the attacks on New York in 2001.  Following the discovery of a would be terrorist who apparently had hidden a bomb in his shoe, the entire planet started a protocol of airport security screening which exists to this day.  Thus began a couple of decades of shoe removal, x-ray scanning and pat downs at airport terminals. Though there has been no record of any further terrorist efforts thwarted by such security, millions of nail clippers and water bottles have been confiscated.  But the procedure has taken a life of its own as everyone routinely accepts the procedure because it’s for their safety.  Thus, a muti-billion dollar bureaucracy is now an essential part of daily life.  Only now, it’s become worse, because now, electronic iris scans are virtually mandatory…for your safety.

As recently as only a few years ago, the world was paralyzed by an apparently dangerous virus which necessitated draconian measures of isolation and protection for…your safety.  Regardless of how non-sensical or invasive the protocols were, people were obliged to follow the new safety rules to be able to move about in society.  As the ensuing years have passed, it’s become evident just how preposterous those edicts were.  Recall standing six feet apart at the airline counter, but then only to sit elbow to armpit next to someone on the plane for 5 hours.  Or to mask up upon entering a restaurant, but then able to de-mask once seated.

Related to this was the over the top response to peaceful protesters in Ottawa who didn’t happen to agree with the government’s draconian edicts.  Police were sent out to trample protestors…for their safety.

When politicians run for office, they are often known to invoke the ‘for your safety’ card in proposing new rules just to live in society, as if they were protecting people from some cataclysmic danger.  We will soon see the push for central bank digital currencies…to protect the public of course.  We now have cars that monitor your driving habits…again for public safety.

How did civilization survive through the eons without pearl clutchers restraining us at every opportunity?  I can make the argument that this is a phenomenon related to females and female leaders.  The very idea of safety resonates more with the female populace than it does for males.  It is not in the nature of most men to do things based on the safety of a particular action. I will wager that everything from seatbelts to helmets and airbags have at their roots an appeal to women’s notions of safety.  If you’ve ever shopped for any baby product, safety is the number one selling feature above all.

Men don’t generally worry about safety as it relates to ascending or descending a mountain.  Safety doesn’t hold them back from exploring new lands or to go up in a rocket to other planets.  Safety doesn’t hold them back from spending vast sums on capital projects and risky ventures.  In the grand scheme of things, all great things have been accomplished by doing things outside of the confines of safety.   Civilization is not about safety.

But somehow over the years, the overriding aspect of ‘safety’ is baked into so much of our everyday lives that innovation and freedom are stifled, leading to a flaccid and fearful society.   Where?  Well Canada is a prime example of a smothering nanny culture.  The present environment of creeping big government has been increasingly responsible for the dearth of innovation and ambition.  Young, ambitious people are leaving to more hospitable nations. According to Statistics Canada, record numbers of people are leaving Canada within 2 years of arriving.  Of course there are other issues as well such as high housing costs, but much of that could be mitigated by policies aimed at growth instead of protectionism and alarmism.  Protecting everything under the guise of safety leads to a stagnant nation which will not grow and will in fact shrink.

Masculine sensibilities must return.  There has to be a preference for growth and risk taking in order for any civilization to progress.  Looking backwards and being fearful of every path taken will lead to insular and stagnant societies.  We don’t need to be protected at every step in our lives.  We have become prisoners of the safety lie.

Maybe the pundits were right. Maybe the guardrails should be taken off to cull the herd of the terminally inept.

Addendum.  Just a day after this was published, Senator Tammi Duckworth urges re-instatement of shoes off policy at airport security points. They are caricatures of themselves.

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.