Of all the unmitigated absurdities to force a populace into a state of prolonged privation, just so those who are not suffering because they are in a position of surplus, have their lives so regulated by a routine of expectation, they expect others to abide by a similar plan of process, procedure and productivity, in terms of a product return... in this instance, a loan. For all their assumed business rationale of investing in that which appeared as a potentially profitable venture, they come face to face with the reality of life... yet they want to retreat from such a realization into the illusion of recompense and name this fantasy... Austerity. Austerity is the monster of their contrived fairy tale, a monster that they do not have to have any real, first-hand experience with, thus making the stories of those having to suffer at the hands of such a monster, an allusion, an illusion that will pass away and they can turn the pages to the next chapter, to the next story in a book cataloging various tales of prone-to-failure economic policies.
Yet, let us be fair in our assessments of who has participated in creating one or another Frankenstein. Then again, let us be equally fair in determining who is responsible for perpetuating the viability, if not rumors thereof to the extent of creating a living mythology. On the one hand it is not fair that people should be subjected to measures of austerity over prolonged periods of time when imposed on them by human factors such as creditors, but neither should the creditors be faulted with sole blame if the people themselves have participated in the conditions which directly contributed to the need for credit or an inability to repay a loan based on personal disencentives to do so such as maintaining a black market type of commerce that does not pay taxes, thereby contributing to debt. If a government can not be trusted to tell the public the truth about its holdings and debts, and the public participates in 'under the table' commercial activities which harm the public coffers and debt, and creditors don't take these circumstances into consideration before providing loans; we have a situation that may well perpetuate itself into the next century.
When developed economic policies are projected reconstructions of childhood fairy tales concealed by the language of business and adulthood, it is the main characters, those who make up the few, the 1%, as a minority of those who make up a cast of millions, that are to come out on top. But investors, these bankers, these politicians, these business men and women are not insensitive. But they often do not have to live the privations which accompany measures of austerity that the people are cajoled, are manipulated, are persuasively motivated and even sometimes forced to abide with. Those who call for the usage of Austerity Measures are quite often far removed from the many forms of suffering individually experienced by a public that wants to do the right thing, to pay back a debt, but do not want to be subjected to a convoluted mentality once practiced by the British, which advanced the rationale of a debtors prison. Prolonged austerity measures creates the unwarranted social conditions of a populace subjected to a prison, that the sensibilities of some within that prison, are provoked into feeling they have been thrust into a dungeon and made subject to its horrors.
Those investors who ask for Austerity Measures, perhaps with a contrite and solemn countenance, and those who must then try to sell their constituents on this proposal; fail to account for the fact that those who are being "motivated" into accepting such conditions, were not permitted to partake of a full partnership arrangement. They did not make the investment deal that they are now being forced to yield up a recompense for by prolonged unemployment, and by the many individual losses only those suffering can fully describe with an intimacy of explanation. The social contract has been broken. That which binds the govern and those who are governed to participate in a coherent and complementary fashion has been rent in two. They have suffered enough. Enough, is Enough, is Enough.
Austerity measures create a snowball effect when it produces risky economic conditions making further investment a presumed exercise in futility. Investors want to be safe. They have more than plenty resources to bide their time to await more favorable conditions. And if conditions are not seen on the horizon as a naturally recurring variation of social forces, they will then artificialize social conditions to make them more amiable to investment, to one's hoarding interests. Yes, let us contrive the idea of a European Union as a means of increasing the pool of money that can be made available to those whose greed are like a child whose curiosity is whetted with the anticipation of what the next (economic) story will unfold as they turn the pages of a timeless activity which is allowed to prosper at the expense of the many for a few. It is a modernized form of serfdom that they people are too ignorant to perceive because they are affixed with the blinders of an indentured servant with down cast eyes they have been conditioned into obligating themselves to as an indication of respect for those with the most money... no matter what methods and measures they use to get it.
And once the people are sold on the idea of a European Union based on a philosophy of unity which professes a share and and share alike humanistic equality, let us also encourage the usage of a single bank note, called the Euro, because the process of exchange and rate-differentiated calculations detracts from the ability of those who want to squeeze every penny from every piggy bank they can. Because the people have been sold on the idea of paying enormous taxes to be provided for enhanced social services, it's only right that investors take advantage of this communal mindset by advancing further ideas of our inclinations to use economic forms of Communism and Socialism to increase the likelihood of an accepted servitude which will be defined as an Expression of Democracy, yet is anything but. Promoting the idea that the people will enjoy a greater realization of Democracy is a gold mine of opportunity to wield economic policies advancing a communal pooling of money that, because of the existence of an illusory "social contract", the people will oblige us various personal deprivations because the mentality of present Democratic inferences is one of patriotism. The people will feel that it is their patriotic duty to suffer, and if necessary, even to die so that the wealthy do not have to suffer the dire consequences of losing a penny, when that which they invested is contrasted to that which is still available to them.
The presumed "Social Contract" between the governed and those who govern is null and void until such time as the people have acquired the status of being a full partner, whose provisions thereof are contracted in a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those seeking to invest in any resource must go through the people. Without their acceptance, no agreement will go forward, regardless if those in the presumed governing authority says otherwise. All investments are risks, no matter how well researched or how deep a person reaches into their "gut feeling". If a venture suffers a loss, the loss must equally be suffered by all who are involved, and not have the definition of that "equality of sufferance" defined solely by one partner. If investors are not willing to take risks, without conditional guarantees that the people will have to endure Austerity Measures, they should not be permitted either to invest, or be involved in the business of making money or investment, in any way shape or form... other than that which provides the commonality of subsistence the average citizen obtains through employment. If necessary, they must be forced to relinquish all their resources, as a measure of imposed "austerity" on them, except for that which permits them to experience the same level of privation they expect others to oblige them with. The age of the Robber Baron, in all forms, must come to an end.
The practice of designing Economic policies based on the underlying basic themes portrayed in Fairy Tales or some other literary genre, must be stopped. The whole of humanity must go beyond such nonsense. It is not that the basic intention of a "Union" in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or else-where/else-wise is wrong. But good intentions fall short of expectations when self-indulging avarice is permitted a foothold in decision making. You can not make a successful "Union of European Countries" prosper for the people when it becomes insidiously equated with a dominant notion of being an "Economic Union" (European Economic Community). An "Economic Union" becomes a central clearing house which makes it easier for investors to spend as little time and risk as possible, in pursuing their foremost interest, which is to count ever higher stacks of resources whereby they can command others to do their bidding; through various forms of attached persuasion. And yet, again, let it be stated that the people themselves are not permitted to engage in the bidding process as a full partner would thus be provided in any and all business transactions. While the people are expected to bear the largest proportion of the burden, they are not similarly permitted to share equally in the rewards of such a burden. While a few do, most don't.
The "European Union" whose actual underlying practice is better stated with the label of "Economic Union", pools the raw resources, the labour and accumulate wealth to best advantage those few who can best take advantage of the accumulation because of an alliance with the governing few who transact deals on behalf of the many who have little say so in the business transaction. They are not permitted to say who they want to do business with, how much they are willing to go into debt for, why they would or should go into debt for, and what the terms of repayment are... including whether or not some auxiliary method of payment is concealed in small print which defines an unwarranted request to suffer the consequences of prolonged Austerity Measures. Despite the names used to describe various associations of different European neigbhors— with the initially sincere intentions for producing a prosperous "common-wealth" as a prescription for an enhanced form of equality through mutually beneficial trade agreements; the existence of government sanctioned economic policies agreeing to the usage of "Austerity Measures", clearly indicates this is an underlying separatist (egotistical) orientation that would better serve the needs of the people if it were genuinely altruistic.
It is an irresponsible Democracy which promotes Austerity Measures on a populace who never had an opportunity to fully, as an equal partner, transact the initial formulation of a business deal. It is as ridiculous as forcing, with authoritative forms of "persuasion", the entire population of school to pay the costs of replacing destroyed or damaged property that was lost due to the actions of a few who decided to engage in an activity without asking for permission. Granted, though the analogy is crude, its intent suffices as an illustration that the whole of a population should not be forced to endure one or another privation because of actions that were taken by a few without the approval of those who are included in a conversation as if they were actually present during a discussion and whose silence is taken as a confirmation of approval.
Varying formulas of Irresponsible Democracy abound. Take for example the case in America where the idea of a "social contract" is aligned with the notion of the people having an "equal" share of governing ability by way of a voting process. The United States, synonymously described as a "Union", hence a "Union of States", "pools" its resources, pools its labor, and pools a proportion of the labored wealth by way of taxes that can be used by governing authority to do whatever it wants... so long as a majority of the authority are convinced of the propriety for doing so. For example, in some places you will see the usage of collected taxes for the construction of public recreation centers, and then the users of such centers are required to pay an additional fee. If the collected fees do not meet operational and maintenance costs, taxes can be raised for this or that fund, though the uses of "creative accounting" methodologies for directing funds along this or that alternative course, are not publicly shown. While there are those who claim that the people can reject a tax proposal, a proposal can be adopted if only one person votes in an agreement thereof, in an instance where they alone chose to vote. Using the argument that the public is "fully vested" in making their Will known by way of the voting box, a process that is generally felt to be worthless as evidenced by an extremely poor percentage of people participating.
Political Authority does not care whether people advantage themselves of their Right to "participate" in the governing process (like a cue-card directed television studio audience)... an audience who has come to rightly believe that their vote is meaningless. Even if the people vote against something, such as the rail system in Salt Lake City, the governing Authority promote some necessity for disregarding the Will of the People and go ahead with the project anyway. The people had no recourse short of an outright rebellion, which they did not effect. In fact, Authority prefers that most people don't vote, if the would vote against a politician's proposal. All governing Authority needs under the present practice of Democracy is to have a dominant percentage of participating voters say yes on a ballot form... whether the number of participating votes is a million, thousand, hundred, ten or one person. This is America in its practice of an Irresponsible Democracy.
Instead of insisting in the practice of a Democratic formula which enforces the need of the public to be a fully vested, and equal partner in social governance as the cornerstone of any and all economic practices, Authority chooses the most irresponsible form of "Participatory Democracy" it can get away with... which has resulted in the disgusting usage of "Austerity Measures" as if it were a logical and viable plan. Ridiculous! The presumed "social contract" has been shredded by those who govern and those that they, and not the people, chose to transact business with under disgusting, and totally unacceptable conditions. But though such conditions have placed the people into a spectrum of desperation, they still remain conserved with the restraint of a desired civility. But they can not be held responsible for a debt, that if totally paid in a proscribed time frame, leads to the digging of a grave for one's country, one's people, one's self-respect. We can not tolerate those whose self-interests to regain a measured allowance of that which they already have an abundance of, is not tempered with unconditional restraint, we will have no choice but to reclaim our rights of total sovereignty, until such time as an honest "Union of European States" can be advanced without being commensurately defined with a defining nickname as the "Economic Union of European States" through which a few prosper at the expanse of the Many.
It is not the desire of a people to forego an interest in developing a unity of peoples from different walks of life. For the planet Earth is very much smaller these days. The deprivations and sorrows experienced by those whose lives were at one time as distant as we of today may conceive of those in another galaxy, are now realized, through a sincere empathy, as an expression of a more profound and fuller humanity extended beyond the self-indulgent grasp of irresponsible economic policies. If the people are to have a Union, and to profit as a sovereign people evincing a Nationalist pride, all of us, must be entitled to a Unified Constitutionality which mandates the entitlement of a fully vested partnership. There will be not illusory, Urban Legend-like 'Social Contract' to be accepted as a document of rationality that a few can use to take advantage of the Many, as if it were an actual, legal contract, and yet be absolved from having to commit themselves from participating because there is no actual way to enforce an agreement which has not real legal standing. The so called "social contract" can no longer be used as a means to force the public in obligating itself to accede to the requests of those who do not likewise have to participate when expected to, under the same "social contract" agreement.
Though a government may advance the propriety of separating "Church and State", as well as a "Separation of Powers" within its structure of Executive, Judicial and Legislative divisions, however they may linguistically be demarcated with a given culture; its reluctance to practice a separation of "Business and State", giving rise to a host of sociological terms involving one or another business-related orientation; is because such governments are attempting to do entirely on its own, by way of a selectivity of players aligned with a preponderance of political authority, instead of involving a greater majority, called the people, who stand to loose more because they no readily available reserves of capital with which to counter-balance unexpected economic turn -of- events which may be disfavorable. Indeed, because the stakes are so high, it is the most minimalist of logical discourse to increase the chances of profitability, if by no other means than to 'break even' in a business deal, by having not only the voting power as might one sharing in a full partnership, but by being a vocally proportioned decision maker as well as both a developer and writer of the agreement to be contracted.
Though it may be difficult for some to conceive of the public's ability to engage in the business-related political decisions for which they will be forced to abide by the terms of such a contractual agreement, though they had no part in its actual deliberated development... because the public has been socially trained over multiple generations to denigrate its own conscience of mind and wherewithal abilities and thus to think otherwise; the debilitating effects for which the public has, does, and may will continue to suffer, provides a nakedness of truth that the present mentality of economic policies can not, must not continue. It is a realization that the people themselves must forcefully intercede on its own behalf to insist that such nonsense will not continue. The mentality and its players must be segregated from ever being able to participate in any economic venture whose verbal or written contractual agreement is found to undermine or in any way diminish a Sovereign Peoples' Right to establish economic stability and further its viability... but not at the cost of the people themselves. If such an enhanced form of Sovereignty can only be procured by a separatist form of Nationalism, then so be it, though a European Union form of Nationalism, in terms of advancing a larger consciousness of one's humanity would be preferable, is not mandated in a European Bill -of- Rights adopted by the various peoples themselves.
But a desire for the adoption of a previously used separatist form of Nationalism is not a regression. It is not a turning back of the clock promoted by some presupposed "Good old Days" sentimentality. Because the people have come too far. They have seen and experienced too much, accompanied by a commensurately developed fortitude, courage, intelligence and wisdom. It is not that present conditions are bad, but that they are miserably bad... which forces them into the consideration of taking a step back, to catch their breath, when they are being asked to assume a second wind, to breech what some refer to as an athletes "wall" of presently stamina.. at the very moment privations are exhausting them. They are sick and tired of being made to feel guilty in order to obligingly give more, as if subjected to an Oliver whose stomach is filled with the insatiable hunger of a parasite yet their bowl is always full because they have made others feel sorry for them. But the people have noting to be ashamed of. They have done no wrong. They can no longer suffer the consequences of an indignity imposed upon them through the many forms of disrespect engendered by a sustained policy of Austerity Measures. If you want the people to suffer, than you must share in the suffering equally. We The People must be free of this Debtor's Prison. When a person has a debt, they work to pay it off. Likewise with a Community or a Nation. We can not permit to be subjected to a servitude that will endure into future generations and have our children, their children and their children's children grow up thinking they are obligated... and that obligation can never be met, because the costs of the debt mount due to an inherently designed structured to do so.
We The People have no desire to live in the past. We want the future. But it must be a viable future. We can not tolerate the many forms of Irresponsible Democracy, or Communism, or Socialism, or any other social and socio-economic plan of governance to dictate the terms of how, when, where, by what means, and with whom we are to pursue such a path; that is lined with a myriad form of individually sanctioned toll booths which are permitted to dictate the required cost, required loss, and required alternative recompense to be indulged in by the public— without the people having any viable way of disputing unreasonable charges... in order to give the toll booth operators a bonus on top of an already received lucrative salary and benefit package. It truly is a modern day form of a Middle Ages formula for taking advantage of a people whose collective power is marginalized by requiring it to advance its opinion by way of a Revolt, Revolution or Rebellion. Such a requirement is but one of many expressions of a practiced Irresponsible form of governance that seeks to keep the people at bay by convincing them that such a collective opinion is an extremely arduous process with little chance of success, and is therefore not worth the time and effort. Yet, the people realize that such an effort of propaganda to dismiss the viable utility of committing oneself to a Redirection of purpose than mere subservience to the dictates of elected officials, must indeed have a great level of promise for so much effort to be used in discounting it.
When deals go bad amongst contractual agreements between varying authorities, it is the people who are made to suffer. In peace or in war, it is the people forced to endure privations. It is always the people who are forced to make amends, though they may have little say so in the actual deal. It is not Authority or their agents who suffer an equal share in the experienced privations of the people, for if they would have to, no such Austerity Measures would be practiced. They do not suffer the loss of a meal, the loss of employment, the loss of a vehicle, the loss of a home, the loss of those amenities of socialization which are used to define one's self-respect as a economically viable citizen. Authority indulges themselves in creating their own permission to engage in economic agreements, that because of the historically noted vagaries of the human condition, in that things do not always turn out as expected; forget to likewise plan for the possibility of failure. Yet none of those engaged in such ventures entertain loss because it is only the people, those who are not permitted a fully vested partnership, and are forced to accepted a vicarious "Representative" substitute; that will be able to acquire a small proportion of pecuniary return if the deal turns out well, and yet assume total responsibility for providing the largest proportion of recompensatory activity if a deal goes sour. The contractual agreement incorporates a clause that those directly involved with the deal, those who stand to reap the lion's share of the available gain, will not have to experience an equal share of the loss.
The European Union, as is presently being practiced, forces its individual members to individually suffer— though they are supposed to retain a collective consciousness which makes them all more amiable and habituated to the ulterior motives of those that want to take advantage of all that a collectivity, a "pooling" of resources provides. They want all that is good, without having to assume any responsibility for the occasion of some undesirable event, and to nonetheless be provided with a stipend for being "inconvenienced" by social conditions which delay their desire for increasing the yield of their wealth. Wide spread privations delineated as "Austerity Measures", though debilitating to so many lives, is viewed as an an inconvenience that they should additionally be compensated for, even when it was and is their plan which failed to consider that an investment is a risk, and a risk necessarily comes with the possibility of assuming a loss... without trying to machinate some retribution, retaliation, or other remonstration in an attempt to procure some reimbursement guaranteed by those who had not right to make a bargain which would cause the prolonged suffering of so many. When it is obvious that the people can not speak coherently for us, we must do so for ourselves.
In doing so for ourselves, we must demand a Cenocracy. (New Government) And with such a demand comes the Cenocratic design of a full partnership agreement that is Constitutionally mandated with an accompanying Bill -of- Rights provision.