Compromises are a valuable way to approach your neighbors, to build a consensus in the community if there is a conflict – Two parties coming to an agreement of a half-way that might not be the best for both, but is overall a sweet spot where you won’t get into each other’s way. Renegotiating the terms is also easy when its Friendly Frank next door you had an agreement with that needs a slight touch-up.
However, the same scenario is just not so easy when the agreement was done over your head, against your wishes and done in a place far away from you – That is what Parliamentarism represent to me. Now, I’m not necessarily talking a geographical gap, but that one sure doesn’t help. When decisions that make sense for your local community affects a different community, the outcome will not be the same.
When the local community gets handcuffed by the parliamentarians choosing to remove the local governments decision making, centralizing the power – Isolating the single citizen, removing her agency and restricting the choices in her life. Remotely.
“We live in a democracy, you can vote for party X to remove resolution Y! They dislike that just as much as you!”, the opponent might say.
That not how the real world works and certainly not on a Parliament level. That is, in essence, a false promise, outsourcing of your sovereignty to someone above you in the food chain: The Vampire Politician.
“But!”, say the politician, “We are the good guys, the organizers of society”,
Dare tell these tales to the ones wronged: To the ones you’ve disarmed, promising police as a substitute, only to give criminals free rein instead. To the old people, the ones you promised a pension and golden years, that now have to live on cat food and scraps, in a run-down home for the elderly. Tell those words to the middle-class you squeeze every tax cent you can to fund your lifestyle of bombs, lies and
You are lucky to live among a patient public with a far longer fuse than you deserve.
Like actors on a stage, the political representatives are playing a theater in front of their audience (voters, supporters). Giving the illusion of choice is the political parties whole function and they are often used as a weapon to divide the public, through nice-sounding rhetoric to continue the oppression of the people the like to call that they serve – The complete opposite is closer to the truth, though.
“Partyarchy”, as Konkin wrote, is truth.
The corridors of the parliament are indistinguishable from back alleys where shady deals get negotiated. Handcrafted deceit is produced and sold in the halls of power. Even if “your side” wins an election, the ones you voted for have to negotiate with who others voted for and the layers of compromises mutate the intention of any reasonable suggestion – The end product is some horrible abomination that has nothing in common with what anyone wanted.
When the politicians become social engineers that can shape societies to their liking, against the man on the streets wants or needs, it is a forced order. There is little to no negotiation with the ones affected. Voting for a party that is the least bad out of your select choices is the only way to change your position? And through doing that you have to meddle with the business of someone hundreds of miles away from you in the process of freeing yourself? Is that really the best way to structure society?
I say no. Let the politicians bicker in their offices and give back the power to rule over their own life. If we need to outsource parts of our lives to someone, let it be someone we can stop funding the moment they stop giving a good service. Let the market compete for your support. Society is too delicate to be run by a ship of fools.