One might pose the question: is our economic strategy a sum of reason, or a product of externality? There is a reason we put “no exit” at the bottom of a street sign so I would favour the latter. There is a parallel here between the politics of section 59, and the politics of our economics.
Eighty percent of the population is clear that we wish to retain the authority of the family. We want the law to represent that position, which it does at this time, yet slightly over 50% of our MP’s are being whipped into voting against the population.
How many of those 63 odd MP’s are being whipped to vote with the party, how many would simply vote for the party any way, and how small is the group at the top who are ordering a block vote instead of a conscience vote.
The reason I point this out is because this is the same small group of people that provide the externality for one mans thinking, and the consequential economic direction of the country. It may be a little more difficult for eighty percent of the population to come to grips with the complexity of economics as opposed to understanding family authority and discipline, but it is not hard to understand this parallel: that if a small group within the State Party are determined to have authority over your children then they are equally determined to have authority over your finances, or to put that another way, if the central social plan offends the population, then so does the central economic plan.
This didn’t work in Russia, and it isn’t working here. It hasn’t worked in Sweden, and we are doing as Sweden did – trading its economic security for a failed social experiment.
If the strength of our economy is the production of voting fodder, then we will be short changed financially the way we are being socially. There’s no shame in ruthlessly pulling these people apart, because that’s exactly what they are doing to us, so lets stop being polite about it, and lets get rid of them.