The Non-Promise

Politicians promise. We all know that. They promise more funds to this and that, tougher laws on this and that, lower taxes, more freedom, higher taxes, less freedom, and God knows what. The result is usually a bigger State today than yesterday, a less flexible society and so on. The politician means well in most cases - he wants to make sure he stays in office so his favorite groups of voters can have a brighter future, and fuck the rest.

This approach is completely wrong as far as this author is concerned. The endless flood of promises has many negative effects on the voter. The voter begins to think all problems are the politicians to solve. He begins to think the individual contribution means nothing because the State is so much bigger and stronger. The voter, in short, hands more on more of his independence and initiative over to the State, which is in all respect bad.

Anti-promise
Instead of making a promise of doing something, this author believes a promise of not doing something is a more fruitful approach for the politicians and the society. What happens if the politician promises he will not increase funds to development-aid in Africa? What if the politician promises he will not start State-operated programs meant to cure the obeast, give riches to the poor or free addicts from addiction?

What will happen is that people will understand that it is not the State's job to heal every single disease or change every single out-of-the-normal behavior in the society. The result is increased private-initiative, more generous donations to private charity foundations, more care for the hungry and the tired, and a bigger personal responsibility in a society of humans.

We need politicians who promise not to do things. Everything else is an illusion.