Punish everyone for one's mistake?

There is no better example of the differences in ideology between the “common folk,” and those elected or appointed to serve those common folk, than the recent dispute about use (abuse) of the town dump. I reference two front page articles in the IR concerning this issue, one on Aug. 4 and the other on Aug. 18.

The Assistant to the Mayor detailed this abuse, as a home owner demolished a house and sent 14 loads of construction debris to the dump, free of charge as a resident and not as a business operation. The Mayor put an exclamation point on his story by stating this was not the first instance of abuse, but it was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

So now, quoting the IR article, “The idea was presented to start charging for every load every time.” Because one person abused the free dumping privilege (after others had done the same, according to the Mayor), now the proposal is that everyone be punished by taking away the free dumping privilege — which, by the way, home owners already pay for with the monthly trash collection fee included on the city’s water and sewer bill.

How typical of those in power. Instead of assessing a fee on the abuser, who has to be known to the city because the city had to issue a demolition permit, the proposal is to punish everyone who uses the dump. There has to be something in the myriad of city ordinances that prohibits massive dumping by an individual. This abuser should be the only one “punished” for his indiscretion. But no, everyone needs to be punished by imposing a fee for using the dump where no fee previously existed.

How does this tie in to ideology? One segment of our society believes that “a rising tide floats all boats.” Enforce the laws that already exist. Reliance on individual freedom is of paramount importance. The other segment of society believes in the concept that “misery loves company.” Spread the misery to everyone. The government can solve all problems (by imposing fees or taxes, or regulations that strangle all opposition).

Unmentioned is the relationship to the major political parties, but the relationship is pretty clear. One party stands for less government, and one party stands for increased government, like imposing a fee on everyone because of one incident of abuse.