By Kieron Mcfadden
It is one thing to decide and agree upon the product we want our government to deliver in exchange for the money we pay it.
It is quite another to make sure that it does and that it keeps on so doing.
There is hardly a government on the planet at this time that is delivering the product.
If the environment is being rendered safe for somebody (which I doubt) that somebody sure as hell is not the likes of thee and me.
Regardless of whether our government SAYS that whatever it is doing it is making the world safer, our experience is that the environment is becoming more dangerous in almost every aspect and very often the danger emanates from government itself!
Take the war on terror for instance. I don’t know about you but I don’t feel safer. I don’t feel any more scared of terrorists than I did but I sure as hell feel more intimidated by my own government in its efforts to make the world safe!
Economically I feel less safe. In the unstable, mismanaged mess of my country’s economy, I’m poorer and less secure than I once was and less confident of the future and I sure am more inhibited in my efforts to flourish and prosper.
Are people more literate, more equipped with the life skills necessary for them to be able to flourish and prosper? No, they are not. In my own country, Great Britain, educational standards have dropped through the floor.
We need to be able to make correct and rational decisions so as to flourish and prosper. For that we need truthful information and not falsehoods from our fellow human beings, from industry and from government itself. Is our environment then free of the falsehoods that lead to erroneous decisions? No it is not. And it is a deteriorating scene in which we become increasingly bewildered. Governments lie and withhold information and even start wars that get a lot of good people killed based on falsehoods; mighty drug corporations are less than honest about the drugs they try to seduce us into buying; food corporations put stuff in the food that damages our health and hope no-one will notice; the media slants its reports and cannot be trusted, and so on.
We are not getting the product of a safe environment in which all honest people are able to flourish and prosper free of inhibition to our survival efforts.
What we are getting is the opposite: a progressively less safe environment in which the inhibitions to our survival efforts are increasing.
So our governments are not delivering the goods.
It is necessary then to correct the actions of government so that it does deliver the goods or at least moves in the right direction – towards a safer environment and reduced inhibition to our efforts to flourish and prosper.
We would do that with any other group that sold us a lousy product. Indeed any entity that produces something MUST have some kind of quality control function in order to be able to detect and correct a flawed or inferior product.
So why not government?
But how do we correct the course of government when it moves in the wrong direction and does not deliver the goods?
What is required if that is to be achieved, is a quality control function for government.
This would be an entity exterior to government and thus able to oversee it. Such an entity would have a clear idea of what the product is supposed to look like. It would be alert enough to spot the flat ball bearings when they appear AND the specific errors or malfunctions further up the production line that produced the flawed product. It would also have to be powerful enough to insist that corrections are made so that the product IS delivered.
So far as I am aware no government in history has ever had such a quality control function and like any group that does not have the facility to detect and correct goofs, they fail.
Does such a quality control entity exist? At present, no.
Could we create one? Yes, we could.
If all public groups came together and formed a forum, a united front able to speak with one voice, such a forum could exert quality control upon government, probably for the first time in history.
It would actively then be helping government deliver its product of a safe environment in which all honest people (including those in government) can flourish and prosper.
And then we all win.
Kieron Mcfadden’s essay has organised and defined an important concept.
Government is out of control and in some ways counter productive. I believe there are enough resources and common interests in the world for all to be reasonably happy, healthy and free. As it stands governments render us anxious, sickly and constrained.
I suggest that today’s path to well being is a crooked one; comprised of taking personal responsibility for every controllable aspect of one’s daily life and living.
So, turn those corners up, watch what you eat, drink or breathe; get some exercise and do a little something for your neighbor. Oh, and shed the government propaganda like the government sheds common sense solutions. …
We all could agree on the problems spelled out, but this “solution”, is part of the “problem”. How in the world do you propose to “speak with one voice”…
When a good portion of the population believes fervently in abortion?
When a small but powerful portion of the population fervently believes in limiting smoking locations – but not overall legalities?
When a portion of the population rallied behind a focus on “sewers before stadium”… and the majority told them to forget it, they want to just see good concerts.
Speaking with “one voice” is the exact opposite of what we need. When the “leadership” speaks with one voice, those that don’t agree, get run over – and might as well leave.
We do not need a PILE on the popular pack mentality.
Good politicians do little to grow government and “experiment”, but mostly argued with each other. Locally, we “spoke with one voice” in electing Weinzapfel. Didn’t he decide that voice told him to build a multi-million dollar stadium in a tiny lot with no room to expand? Didn’t he decide to give away the McCurdy lot? Didn’t he decide to get the city into the banking business with Bank on Evansville? Didn’t he decide to start and fund FDP? Etc. etc.
Who wins, when the city pays excessive prices to build and sell a house, for a loss? Who wins, when it won’t collect property taxes for many years? Who wins, when those residents become totally dependent on a lifestyle of government largesse? Who wins, when small business that used to do small renovation work, fold, because they can’t compete with a clearly flawed, FDP business model?
Speaking with one voice, is just like calling for a pure Democracy. Our founding fathers understood, that this leads to tyranny. (Look at Evansville, we are an example…)
Speaking with one voice, sounds like supporting the strongest bully that can just get quick “results” at any cost? (Which sounds like passing an Obamacare law without even reading it. Or a financial regulation bill without even reading it.)
Comments are closed.