Some feel that their elected representatives went beyond their civil roles when they made the choice of sewer system for Grand Bend based on the recommendations of a third party, namely the Dillon Corp. Others complained that the company assigned to research alternatives did not really consider very deeply the choices available, and especially the choice that the community had already made historically which favored septic systems.
In the future, the community will have to make choices, and it is a big question whether households will be given the opportunity to participate in those choices and take them on board. It really does matter in Canada that people have the freedom to choose for themselves. It is a cultural value that people here will fight vigorously for.
That the issue of which sewer system revolves around choice is quite apparent to me because of the discussions I have had with a number of very bright people of different cultural backgrounds.
Please view the following TED talk and see whether you might alter your view as regards the political process affecting which sewer system is chosen in Grand Bend.
http://blog.singhanuvrat.com/miscel/ted-talks-sheena-iyengar-on-the-art-of-choosing
Now having viewed the video on your computer or iPad, you may feel as I do that what has happened in Grand Bend is a matter of how different people might view the question of choosing which sewer systems and where. The fact is that there are many choices wrapped up in this single choice.
Overall, I am convinced that individual households need to have the freedom to make their choice whether or not it is the correct choice. Thus, I am in favor of the septic system since it is my choice. However, I do realize that there are authors who say that the government should decide for me which system to implement. My response to that is that it is too radical a departure from my original understanding of what would be my choices in the future. It is so radical a departure that I would feel greatly justified in pursuing the matter in a Court of Justice.
The issue then becomes one of whether the Court would decide in my favor given that it is the Government that is limiting my choice. In response, I would feel that it is the government 's role to respect my choices in matters that represent radical departures from what I am expecting when I engage in a long term commitment to manage my property in a reasonable citizen like way. As a citizen, it is my responsibility to make choices that do not detract greatly from other peoples enjoyment of living close to me. Thus, as a good citizen, I would not do anything to endanger them like having a large bonfire in the back garden which could get out of control and start a serious forest fire.
Thus, it is that the choices a government might wish to make are limited just as my own choices are limited. Both I and the government have the moral responsibility of not departing too radically from what would endanger the people of e community. I would argue that it is the government's responsibility to refrain from taking choices away from households where they can make effective decisions and ones that protect the community.
Where governments go wrong is where they assume they can make choices for citizens beyond what is expected by the citizenry. Thus, to take away environmental responsibility from households would be a bad step and would open up the destruction of the role at citizens play in researching choices and in making them based on their role as good citizens.
We are not a dictatorship in Canada and we honor our citizenry and the education system we have that enables that citizenry to make good and wise choices, household by household.
Will ye no think kindly on those who would be your friends! May the sun shine with your thoughts, today, and happiness grow in your heart! May you allow yourself some peace of mind.
