When people, usually of the older generations, complain about a “sense of entitlement” in the younger generations, they need to realize that the argument cuts both ways.
A sense of entitlement develops from getting something you don’t deserve given to you often enough that you forget why you’re getting it, and think you deserve it as a natural right. Those with a better sense of perspective don’t see it that way.
Canada is a cooperative, society. We all give up a little of our freedom (at least in theory) so that everyone can have a fair chance. But, as the COVID epidemic showed us, there is a group of people in this country that have been riding on the sacrifices of everyone else, and think they’re being independent. They take for granted the freedoms that others fought for but sacrifice in their daily lives. These people have done nothing to deserve their freedoms, and therefore are the first to complain when they are asked to make a sacrifice. They are the ones who yell “government conspiracy” when they are asked to make a simple concession like wearing a mask during an epidemic. They are the ones with 20-20 hindsight when a disaster like a forest fire makes tough decisions necessary.
Government: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
One aspect of governing in a democracy involves making choices as to how our freedoms will be applied. It’s the old paradigm: The bus driver must choose between hitting a pedestrian or risk going over a cliff and killing all his passengers. If the pedestrian is your grandmother, you want him to take the risk. Government decision-makers are always considering these situations, and they must, by nature of their mandate, lean towards the greatest good for the greatest number.
Pointy-End Solutions
As I have mentioned in other posts, the person making a decision on the scene is reacting to the present situation with the information available here and now. It seems to them to be obvious what the situation is. “My home is at risk, and I want to fight to save it.” The firefighter has a broader view of the situation, and a broader mandate as well. “If you go in there to protect your home, there’s a good chance you’re going to die. There’s an even better chance you’re going to get into trouble, and I will have to stop fighting the fire to risk my life to save you.” Given the situation, it’s pretty obvious whose risk assessment is the most logical, but we can see the validity of both arguments.
Then entitlement rears its ugly head.
The ultimate low point to this battle happened last week: a small group of protesters with a political agenda showed up at a roadblock and demanded their right to use the road. They became so threatening that the officials were forced to pull their firefighters out of the area, probably leading to even more destruction of private property. It is questionable whether these protesters even had homes in the area.
But those crying “Freedom!” have spent their lives protected by our cooperative society from the results of their selfishness. They have been protected from polio, smallpox, various flu strains and a plethora of other diseases by the herd immunity created by everyone else who got their vaccinations. They have been protected from grinding poverty by the action of union members over the years, giving them the “right” to an eight-hour workday, a minimum wage, statutory holidays and numerous other benefits. They have been protected on the highways by the restrictive speed limits and traffic signs that everyone obeys, giving up personal freedom for the safety of everyone else.
Yet, the moment they are asked to give up a specific freedom, they whine and cry and, ironically, wave a Canadian flag as if that gives them immunity from responsibility.
No One is Always Right
Yes, government officials often make mistakes. Yes, there are policies that need revising. But, in general, we must trust the officials who have the training and the broad-based information to make the decisions that must be made. I know that when the decision has the potential to destroy your home it’s very difficult, but I’m sure there are many people who, acting on an emotional basis, have stayed in places they shouldn’t, only to discover that their freedom to go and stay was a pretty lame defence against the reality of a forest fire.
On the Other Hand
This is not a hard-and-fast rule. In the remote areas of the province, many citizens have the skills, the equipment and the organization to be of great use to the official firefighters. Some areas of the province have sparse enough forests that a trained and well-equipped homeowner can save a properly constructed and safely landscaped home from a fire, releasing the official fighters to apply their skills elsewhere.
Bottom Line
That is one of the lessons of this terrible summer. Our future fire control plans must include regulations that will recognize those who deserve the right to protect their homes and separate them from the self-centred entitlement addicts who simply don’t care about the rest of us.