A bunch of teachers in New Jersey are in the slammer at this very moment, because they were on strike illegally. Also at this very moment, the Liberal government in British Columbia is preparing to illegally break contracts with its employees. Basically the same thing as what the teachers in New Jersey just did. Except that in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell and his buddies will not be throw in jail. Why? Because he's the government. He makes the rules. If you ask me, this sucks.

A contract is a contract. If you break it, you break it. There should be one set of consequences that apply to both sides of the party. I don't necessarily disagree with the teachers being thrown in jail, although I do think that this is a pretty severe measure. But, (and I know these are different governments we're talking about here, but it would not be unlikely that British Columbian employees would be thrown in jail for certain actions too) if you do it to one side, it's only fair to do it to the other side. A contract is legally binding. If you break it, you break the law. Those who make the laws are not immune to them. Or that's the way it should be. In fact, elected governments have broad executive powers all over the place. In theory, the people have recourse, at the next election to throw them out of office.

In the meantime though, are the governments doing what the people want? Are they representing the will of the people? SHOULD they be representing the will of the people? What if they deem the will of the people to be dumb? Should they follow their own will? In other words, democracy as it stands currently in western society is not government BY the people. It's government FOR the people. Ostensibly FOR the people. Is this as it should be? I totally got off my intended topic, so I better stop for now. But think about the issue I brought up. For the people or by the people?

Your name:

Please post any comments you have.


1