Power Corrupts
[this is a draft]
Concentrations of power abuse individuals. Concentrations of power give abusive individuals something to hide behind and diffuse rightful accountability for their actions, leaving individual victims nearly powerless to seek redress. This happens in corporations, governments, and cliques of any shape, size and form. In the private sector, such concentrations lead to price rigging and customer abuses, and hinder progress and the creative benefits of the marketplace. In government, the effects are similar, except the abuse of "price" comes in the form of taxation and regulation; moving down the spectrum, the ultimate end is obviously a dictatorship of one form or another. Gangs are concentrations of power.
Concentrations of power are to be resisted. This is what the Constitution does, and why it’s so fabulous. It doesn’t give the government power – it places power squarely in the hands of individuals who are responsible for governing themselves. It provides a mechanism by which individuals cautiously delegate temporary control of power to representatives who are, in theory, accountable to the individuals who elect them. These representatives are charged with representing the interests of the people in matters where a government is best suited to have power: national defense and certain national infrastructure interests. These could be semantically referred to as "concentrations of power" but they clearly do not derive their power from the oppression of the citizenry, and are plainly just and necessary.
A “concentration of power” transfers control and accountability of power from a person who is affected by it to one who is not.
A government is never affected by any single individual’s welfare, unless that individual plays a key role in that government. Certainly no ordinary citizen’s well being is of any consequence to a government or any of its agents. Thus the individual must look after his own well being – no other party, save a loved one or a loved one’s agent – is fit for the task.
The problem with a national healthcare initiative is that the very concept is based upon a concentration of government power, which is always bad, in the most personal of all decisions. Government (or corporate) control or influence of individual healthcare is a concentration of power – transferring control from individuals who are responsible for the care of themselves and their loved ones to bodies of individuals are have no interest in that individual’s care, who instead represent a concentration of power (be it “the government,” a panel, a collective of any sort) with interests that cannot include any individual.
This is the entire argument in a nutshell: Concentrations of power are to be resisted. Government involvement in an individual’s healthcare is a concentration of power. Therefore it must be resisted.
Power begets power. The Founders knew it and bequeathed us a mechanism to protect us from it. Concentrations of power are also inevitable (there would have been no need to protect us from it otherwise). But when they arise, how are they dealt with? The antidote for concentrations of power is not another concentration of power -- for example, expecting a government insurance program to somehow correct problems arising from a concentration of private insurance interests. It may be effective in the short term, but in the long run, the surviving entity is still a concentration of power, and the solution will be a much greater problem (loss of freedom, inept management of resources, a legal monopoly, etc)
Concentrations of power are to be resisted. This is what the Constitution does, and why it’s so fabulous. It doesn’t give the government power – it places power squarely in the hands of individuals who are responsible for governing themselves. It provides a mechanism by which individuals cautiously delegate temporary control of power to representatives who are, in theory, accountable to the individuals who elect them. These representatives are charged with representing the interests of the people in matters where a government is best suited to have power: national defense and certain national infrastructure interests. These could be semantically referred to as "concentrations of power" but they clearly do not derive their power from the oppression of the citizenry, and are plainly just and necessary.
A “concentration of power” transfers control and accountability of power from a person who is affected by it to one who is not.
A government is never affected by any single individual’s welfare, unless that individual plays a key role in that government. Certainly no ordinary citizen’s well being is of any consequence to a government or any of its agents. Thus the individual must look after his own well being – no other party, save a loved one or a loved one’s agent – is fit for the task.
The problem with a national healthcare initiative is that the very concept is based upon a concentration of government power, which is always bad, in the most personal of all decisions. Government (or corporate) control or influence of individual healthcare is a concentration of power – transferring control from individuals who are responsible for the care of themselves and their loved ones to bodies of individuals are have no interest in that individual’s care, who instead represent a concentration of power (be it “the government,” a panel, a collective of any sort) with interests that cannot include any individual.
This is the entire argument in a nutshell: Concentrations of power are to be resisted. Government involvement in an individual’s healthcare is a concentration of power. Therefore it must be resisted.
Power begets power. The Founders knew it and bequeathed us a mechanism to protect us from it. Concentrations of power are also inevitable (there would have been no need to protect us from it otherwise). But when they arise, how are they dealt with? The antidote for concentrations of power is not another concentration of power -- for example, expecting a government insurance program to somehow correct problems arising from a concentration of private insurance interests. It may be effective in the short term, but in the long run, the surviving entity is still a concentration of power, and the solution will be a much greater problem (loss of freedom, inept management of resources, a legal monopoly, etc)
The antidote for concentrations of power is competition. And competition takes place in a marketplace. Competition (between branches of government) is built into the Constitution. And in the private sector, it is a natural occurrence in a free market. Government's just role is to defend liberty - on a national level, by providing for defense, and by defending the freedom of the marketplace and the rule of just law.
In this light, the current initiative by the president and his surrogates, to promote a binding national government healthcare de facto monopoly, will be a gigantic step backwards. It solves nothing, and we will assume that the bright lights in the Administration understand this.
So the question remains, why are they pushing so hard for such a massive, overt concentration of power over you?
2 Comments:
They do it because they are evil, they are corrupt and they are greedy. Evil, corrupt and greedy people must perpetrate their desires on whomever is unable to resist their efforts. They have deemed the American people unable to resist and are making their move. Can the American people summon the character and fortitude to resist these scoundrels?
THE JURY IS STILL OUT!!!
There is a premise: for every toxin of power there is an antitoxin.
Therefore we need a more accurate methodology to determine the effects which power is having on those in authority.
Post a Comment
<< Home