Public Service or Politics?

Public Service or Politics?


It seems to me most elected officials have it backwards. Did our founding fathers have in mind making a career out of public office? Did they intend for our civil servants to ensconce themselves in a position, build power bases and parlay that support into higher, more powerful office? Did they intend for our leaders, at any level, to spend their time in office ensuring their own reelection rather than serving the constituency? I think not, on all three counts.

For those who believe in the electoral process and yet support the political games played by incumbents and challengers alike (a “necessary evil”), the following alternative may have appeal. What if we did away with the description of our government as a “democracy” and replaced it with what it truly is, “power politics”? What if we advertised for leaders the way major corporations advertise for CEOs? What if political office was qualification based rather than influence based? Imagine.

Major universities would offer degrees in public service. Just as an MBA or other advanced degree is now necessary for consideration to corporate leadership positions, our government positions would require doctoral equivalents. We would identify our future political leaders at an early age, train them for maximum effectiveness throughout the educational process, and pit them against one another in a manner that would allow the candidates to spell out exactly what they would do to improve our quality of life if elected. Then, we would hold them to their promises, exactly. There would be no tolerance for even minor deviation, as this would be considered just cause for dismissal.

The citizenry would cast their votes for the candidate who offers the most benefit for the lowest price. Much the same way we purchase goods and services in the private sector, we would be able to purchase the public services we desire by simply casting our ballot. Efficiency would be rewarded, while waste would be punished. Zap! Gone would be those $750 ball peen hammers the pentagon is so fond of ordering. Gone, too, would be pork barrel legislation and inefficient tactics such as filibustering, posturing and grandstanding. Our elected officials would have no need of these time-wasters. Budgets at every level would be drawn prior to election, and be voted in as a mandate along with the winning candidate. Taxes would be paid in accordance with the wishes of the majority of voters, and would cover the budget dollars, exactly. There would be no deficits, and no surpluses, no need for “creative accounting”, lying and cooking the books. We would get what we pay for.
From the standpoint of the citizen, if the power to rule were to be turned over to the voting public, politicians would become public servants. Their power would be diminished while the common man's power would be increased. If agreements were proposed prior to election, and those agreements were supported by a majority of the electorate, then we would be able to enforce the agreements as if they were binding contracts. The contracts would carry a provision whereby the terms must be adhered to exactly, or the "leader" (administrator) would be terminated. His whole function in office would be to carry out the terms of his agreement with the electorate. Failing this, someone else would be hired to complete it.
True leaders are people who recognize the need for free market mechanics. The problem with this is-where is the man or woman who will set aside his/her own ego and allow the forces of the market to act? We have had so many promising politicians who have attempted to tweak the system in order to get it to do what they think it should be doing, rather than recognizing the perfection of the system, non-interruptus. Alan Greenspan is a perfect example. He fiddles with interest rates many times a year, only to meddle instead of steer. Steering is impossible if the system is to work. Guiding is ego-driven, and will only stall, or prevent, the success we would enjoy were the market to fluctuate in its own way, in its own time.

The current disease in US politics is caused by the concept of "public interest." For example, an honest idealistic person is elected to congress. Day one, he is accosted by four lobbyists. The first demands a tariff increase on certain imports to protect his group's industry - which he claims serves the public. The second lobbyist asserts it will benefit the public if his group gets a subsidy to help its members survive "brutal competition." The third insists that it will help the public if members of his group are given license to be the exclusive providers of a certain service. The fourth says the public will be better off if unions are made illegal in his industry. The next day a new group of lobbyists asks for favors. These requests conflict with those of the first group, but are presented fervently as being in the "public interest."

How does the idealistic congressman decide between lower prices or more jobs for the public? There is no way. Anyone can claim to be public on any issue. "The public interest" has no meaning. It is empty rhetoric. Philosophical reform is required. Discard "public interest" and replace it with individual rights, which mean the freedom of each individual to pursue his own interests as long as he does not coerce or defraud others. This means real capitalism - no tariffs, no subsidies, no protection from competition, no favors. All of this can be eliminated if a true leader would say, "what buyers and sellers do is none of the government's business and I will take no part in interfering with the free market." Free market means the end of lobbying end of favor seeking, end of “guiding,” end of politics as usual.

When politicians have no power to offer other men's property - and their own souls - for sale in the name of "the public interest" will we have true philosophical reform.

Individual Achievement or Reparations?

Individual Achievement or Reparations?

Think of all the amazing efficiencies that have been produced by innovators in the computer business. Production through creativity by software engineers enhances the lives of millions. Similarly, producing food, automobiles, houses, medicines, etc. – not giving them away- is what our economy and our very lives depend upon. We must learn the value of productivity.

Back in March, a cabal of lawyers formed the Reparations Assessment Group and filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government and any corporation that was in existence prior to 1865. The lawsuit seeks damages to compensate today’s Black citizens for the wages lost by slaves. The idea is to punish one part of society in favor of another while denying the fact that the Civil War abolished slavery 137 years ago.

This action ignores fact. None of the victims of slavery are still alive after 137 years. None of the slave owners are alive. Individual and corporate fortunes have changed. It is impossible to trace any particular loss suffered by an individual to any gain enjoyed by another. So the demand for reparations takes the form of a blanket payment to all of today’s blacks at the expense of all of today’s taxpayers. Unfortunately, there is precedent for blanket lawsuits of this type. The United States Government paid $480 million to the displaced Seminole Indians who agreed to move from Florida to Oklahoma. Those Seminoles who chose to stay do not share in this windfall.

Liability law is meant to compensate specific individuals for specific wrongs. The Reparations Group wants to stretch that beyond the limits of absurdity. The cabal is not concerned with punishing or compensating individuals. Their focus is on a racial group. They rely on the view that Americans today are responsible for what some individuals (whites) did 137 years ago and that blacks today are owed compensation for whatever happened to other blacks in 1865, when most landowners practiced slavery. Racial collectives, not individuals, are the real parties in this lawsuit. The consequences are a series of battles. One group exacts endless revenge against the other for ancient wrongs. To use slavery as an excuse to exact wealth from members of one race and hand it to another disregards the responsibility of the individual. They want this to be done through the courts with abstruse legal arguments. This is dangerous to Americans both black and white.

The result of these efforts is not racial harmony or a colorblind society, but, rather, racial warfare. The idea of punishing white individuals who are not guilty of slavery, and rewarding black individuals who never endured slavery, is pure racism. Slavery reparations will not produce one computer, railroad, plane or building. They will not generate long-term growth. Americans should reject the notion of a collective guilt for slavery and uphold the idea of a colorblind society, based on individualism, with productive achievement as man’s noblest activity.