Saturday, July 19, 2003
The way it should be
Why can't politicians, kings, emperors, dictators, etc. be less possessive?
Why can't various groups have their freedom?
Why can't national boundaries be more flexible?
In my Utopia democracy would work from the bottom up, not as now from the top down. What I mean by that is that when politicians have been elected they suddenly get power-mad and possessive of territory, but they should be more respectful of the wishes of those who elected them.
If a group of people, the majority in an area, want to run their own lives or associate with others in another part of this earth, then let them. Political boundaries are relatively rigid but needn't be so. They could ebb and flow according to the wishes of those living in an area.
The Basques, Tibetans, Joshua Nkomo's tribe in Zimbabwe, Tamils, Kurds on the borders of Turkey and Iraq, Indonesians in Aceh and Timor, all should have whatever degree of independence they want. I would even extend this to those communities in Northern Ireland who want to be part of Eire. Provided always that the majority view prevails which excludes meeting the wishes of a few terrorists or cranks.
I myself worked in Indonesia, got paid in Hong Kong and paid tax in the United Kingdom so there is no reason why a community or even an individual or family should not live in one area but pay taxes to another, receiving benefits from wherever they pay their taxes. For instance health care and defence from one area such as Eire but street maintenance and other local services from another where they pay local taxes.
The Falkland islanders come to mind who pay taxes to the UK government and receive defence but also pay local taxes for local matters.
