I ran across this quote again - "When the government gets involved, everyone loses in the long term," posted by some empty headed student in one of those big Texas universities. I have been listening to this shit since Regan got elected. It just gets repeated over and over again until a certain type of individual actually thinks its true. The only scenario where government would be a bad idea is if people where angels. Well mankind is far from angelic. We are base, short sighted and driven by greed, jealousy and envy, and some would argue that's our good side.
The fact of the matter is that when government (a.k.a. - law) wasn't involved men shot men in the street and banks were robbed - the pablum puking repetition of the rhetoric that government is bad serves no purpose. This is a nation of laws - not dictators or armies or royalty and it's a better system than most. But it is government who put that system in place and it is government that is supposed to manage it - not lobbyist. And it has to be big to effectively manage a continent with global interconnectedness and relations you freakin' idiots.
A well thought out system of checks and balances however can be corrupted when "individuals" sell out.
The problem is our lazy uneducated population from which we draw individual representatives from and how easily their morals are bought off to stay elected or gain title, power and stature for title, power and stature sake. The system as now rigged by individuals requires a ton of cash to keep your job as a representative but that's no excuse for selling out or an excuse for citizens to be apathetic.
The solution is campaign finance reform. And I would remind everyone who insists on making empty headed statements about government being bad to step back and think about it. Hyper self interest and a slavish focus on the bottom line may work for an individual business model but it is one helluva lousy way to run a Country.
I would remind the geniuses that swallow the rhetoric that running an individual business and governing (ie managing) a Country are two different things. It's a question of balance. When one sector of the market gets a choke hold (monopoly)on the macroeconomics and structure it thwarts and stifles economic growth and inventiveness across the whole broad market.
The inverse is actually the truth - when government doesn't get involved everyone looses in the long term. It all depends on what we the people tell the government to do. The government is our tool. When we hand it over to individuals, corporatist or the military its function of oversight, and ethics gets abandoned.
The single mindedness of one market sector and its laser like focus on its one business model doesn't take into account the ramifications or unintended consequences of its actions across the whole market nationally and internationally.
To put it in simple terms your State forests would have been clear cut by now because individual market sectors have zero self control when its only focus, goal, and pursuit is to maximize profit. Why do you think overfishing is an issue? Because the individual corporations, companies and businessmen say - the next guy can cut back I'm making as much money as I can.
No one cuts back until a law and a power able to enforce that law is passed by the majority to ensure our collective survival and the continuation of that market and all that is linked to it. That law and that power is called Government. Without it and this isn't hyperbole we return to the wild,wild west. And in case you didn't know it no amount of being right has ever stopped a bullet.
So wise up and get a clue. People are now so comfortable they think government is bad. It is government that has provided that comfort by replacing the rule of the gun with the rule of law.
Without laws and because of deregulation the economy goes through boom and bust cycles rocking everyone's world. Unless you are okay with all that and would like a return to the gun model of running a country, city, town and street I suggest you pull back and think about who is telling you Government is bad?
I'll answer that for you. It's the individual self interested who have been restricted in their pursuit of profit because they do more damage than good to the big picture.
They have no moral compass or long term understanding built into their business plan of maximizing profits through any and all means or when it comes to making a quick buck, and to everyone else be damned.
If the free market is so all powerful how come it can't get a foot hold in Hatti? Because it's the rule of the gun on that island and not law. If there were no laws there wouldn't be a global economic infrastructure and corporatist mechanism in place for you all to worship at.
As usual mans sight needs to be raised up from staring at his own belly button. Part, a small but loud part, and very well funded with national media outlets at their disposal echo the chant of laws are evil (they call it regulation or government because we all know laws aren't evil - they are set up to prevent evil) and claim what holds it all together and props it all up as evil because their particular financiers are encumbered by governance.
Romanticism of rugged individualism (the retarded cowboy) has never saw beyond itself or governed effectively. Greed is not good and Clint Eastwood isn't going to ride into town and save us all from the evil Bush-whackers. We save ourselves by governance and the rule of law.
Pick up a history book and go back to economics class. Although the individual profit whores (Bush-whackers) don't want an educated public because it would screw up their schemes of power and manipulation. It's too hard to manipulate an educated population with empty headed slogans and fear - Government is bad - yeah right - guess again.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
To make a difference click here
4 comments:
Excellent post. It should be required reading for anyone who complains about government taking away their rights/freedoms.
There are two centers of power -- the people and corporations. The purpose of government is to exercise the power of the people. The purpose of corporations is to make money for its stockholders. When people reject government, corporations step in and run the government to their advantage, not the peoples advantage.
We now have corporations running the government. The solution is, as you said, campaign finance reform. Get the corporate money out of campaigns and put the peoples' money into campaigns.
Why don't you read up on some Hayek and come back when you understand this issue?
The very wealthy botanist Hayek so enamored with the Queen of England and Royalty and a champion of the dictator Pinochet spoke out against "laissez-faire capitalism" - so did you actually read my post Mark or are you just name dropping?
Are you a supporter of the ungoverned masses - that's called anarchy.
Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, and institutions for the flow of "proper" information.
He'd go crazy over Fixed news and all the disinformation and propaganda spewed by everyone from all sides, and especially the financial sectors wanton cooking of the books intentionally misleading investors.
When dealing with theorist they never take into account the unrealistic vacuum they lump us into - men lie.
You don't learn reality from slavish adherence to a text book. We are constantly learning.
Mankind has emotion, fear, unreasonableness and hysteria, mob mentality, a lust for blood, power and in some cases would sell their own children out to gain it through anarchy, dog eat dog, winner take all mentality with jealousy and insecurity, running rampant through his bloated egotistical veins controlling his decisions in some very unfortunate circumstances.
To imagine the mythical free market system would balance all of that out on its own because of supply and demand, market forces and the equally absurd notion that greed is good - is beyond absurd and quite Pollyanna.
It's a desire for easy answers and control that bring people to just blurt out mythical, lionized theorists, religions - trickle down, hooray for the non-existent - couldn't possibly thrive purely fictional in theory alone free markets. The result of some rich kids upbringing.
A system of laws (government) in place can insure and assure stability - that's when markets thrive.
Some particular business can't max out its profits by not being able to or take responsibility for cleaning up its disposal, and waste stream it generates into the overall system - so law and government is the failure...?
Not if you take into account the whole picture and the wasted resources, energy and productivity another market sector has to divert to clean up that cutting of corners.
Irresponsibility in the name of profit and unintended or intended but ignored consequences drag the whole market down.
Men are game players - you need laws to pull them back into line and then the economic models can be used as a "guide" to govern.
Man has a responsibility to govern and he can't relinquish that responsibility to monitor and govern to some nice sounding theory that says everything will be all right if we ...(fill in the blank).
In other words absentee management doesn't work and neither does name dropping.
The creative powers of a free civilization are indeed great but not just positive in their manifestations.
Without governance that creativity can be hugely negative with far reaching consequences affecting multiple market sectors and be an impediment to invention and creativity as well as a barrier to entry to the market.
Barriers to market entry can be easily erected in a free civilization - because man is free to do so - that's where laws (government) comes in and takes down those barriers.
I suggest you read up on Hayek and his support of the dictator Pinochet. But I'll add nothing is perfect and neither was Hayek but that doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be gleaned from his work.
For Thatcher to throw his book on the table saying this is what we believe is the relinquishing of responsibility and the abdication of government and the wishful thinking and hope of hiding behind theory to deflect responsibility and try to claim control and certitude.
That kind of thinking is a disaster of reliance (putting all your eggs in one basket)
Not even managing a store is that easy.
Hayek feared that central economic planning lead to totalitarianism. I would add only if you let it - and it was the free marketeer theorist who foisted on us Bush and his Patriot Act with warrentless wire tapping.
So as you see its never easy as a bottled up "theory" or name dropping, but in reality good governance requires vigilant management.
Just because you are in an oversight mode exercising law doesn't mean you are legalizing totalitarianism.
Only absentee management would let that happen.
Thanks for stopping by Mark and the condescending attitude.
Next!
Post a Comment