It seems like you are saying that people that choose to obey the law are conformist? I would have valued some kind of solution other than people just choosing what laws to break. As far as someone that is elected representing your values and opinions, I have always thought the one that lined up most closely was the one that would get my vote. It would be ridiculous to think that one person could possibly represent each persons opinion with all the differing opinions out there. So, in an elected office one would have the interest of the majority in mind. This idea that currently has everyone's attention, that some small facet (a few percent) of society dictating what is OK and what is not to the majority is a joke and eventually will come to an end. Nice post though, I would have liked some ideas on solutions, pointing out problems is the easy part that anyone can do.
An elected representative would only be able to do the things that you, yourself, have the power to do.
If these people stayed within that realm, they could never do any of the following:
Why?
Because neither you nor I have any right to do the following:
So far as any political law does any of the above, it shows that the one(s) enacting it are stepping beyond the bounds of their proposed authority.
A right can not be voted away by a majority. Nor can any majority grant themselves rights that they do not have individually.
Let me preface by saying that I am pro-small government. When the federal government has 6 million (non-military employees) with no product, taxes are their form of revenue. Where in the private sector you are asked to do more with less to be profitable, seems like the opposite happens in government. Now I am happy all these people that work in the public sector have jobs, I just wish there was more accountability/responsibility given they are making their living at others expense. Here is a Facebook post I had a week or so ago that I think sums up my stance.
If someone owned a company that constantly came up below expectations, everything cost more than estimated, all departments were overstaffed, and was constantly borrowing money to stay open... The owners would take action. For example, the CEO would be fired, people further down the chain would be replaced, positions would be eliminated, and refined processes would be put in place to increase efficiency (just to name a few things). Basically, do more with less to reduce the cost of running the business. If things persisted, the company would prove to be dysfunctional/not profitable and be shutdown. Please explain why these same principles don't apply to government, we are the owners. Every single public employee is paid via our taxes. Now we have a candidate saying I am going to raise taxes, which just means more employees not hitting the bar... Right now the total federal government employee workforce (non-military) is about 2% of the population. That is 6 million employees! A 6 million employee outfit and I can't name one thing they do efficiently. Example, how is it UPS and FedEx can turn a profit, but USPS is constantly over budget and needs more money every few years? They do the same thing!
Huge bump when I voted, glad to see it for you.
I obey the Law. Do no harm. I believe that people like you like to think that makes people like me radical. I let others judge how that works, I don't vote for some silver tongued liar to sell scams to destroy established corporate interests' opponents.
Solutions are what politicians sell. The simulcra of solutions. When in fact they just make patches for the short term bad results of the last set of rules they made. And on it goes.
If you want someone to give you solutions, maybe there's some grey stuff in between your ears going to waste.