we lost our starry notions on the way

rkim's retarded ramblings #11
kay i haven't got the hang of the ideas of this rambling, so it may seem a bit weird and broken.
isn't it a basic human right that everyone has equal power in a society? so then why does a government have more authority than the general public? this is because of an implied social contract. the society, by electing a representative from their area, promises some of their 'power' in society to this representative, so that he/she gains a lot more authority. on the other hand, the representative promises to listen to everybody's opinions and not abuse this 'borrowed power'. however, because this social contract is purely implied, and is not set in stone, it is quite easy to break it. this is why politicians generally tend to reiterate to the public, as form of a 'verbal' contract, that they will not do wrong in a status of authority, basically for everyone's peace of mind. but once again, verbal contracts are much easily broken than proper written contracts, so the society can never have peace of mind if a shifty power-hungry person is elected. once more, then, it returns to the society as a whole to put forward a responsible candidate for their representation. however, if a bad representative is elected, then who is more to blame? the representative or the society in general? most people will think that the representative is at fault. however, isn't this the easier option to turn to? if we state that the representative is at fault, we pinpoint someone to put the blame on, rather than facing the harder task of targeting an entire society. of course, both parties are at fault. however, i think that the society is more to blame, for not being able to see the true nature of the representative. however, if the representative became drunk with power and TURNED bad during his time, then obviously he is to blame. it really is a fine line... which party do YOU think is more at fault?

-Rkim