Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Democracy and Government

It is an interesting time to look at the role of government because of what is happening in the US under the Obama administration. I don't really want to take political sides, just look at the tendencies of different perspectives and their effect on society as a whole.

There are 2 pervading views in a democratic society. One is that the government acts as representatives of the people, based on the premise that the majority of society is intelligent and knows what is good for them. The second is that the government acts a caretaker of society, generating laws and programs which will be for the benefit of the whole. On the surface, both views seem to be generally beneficial. But remembering that the government is an extension of the family, 'employed' by the individuals in society to fill a specific role, the second view begins to take on a sinister tone. There are at least two very difficult issues with the second view.  1. If the government acts on its own, against the will of the people, even for the benefit of the people, it assumes a power which is no longer democratic; it has become a rule by force. 2. If the people are no longer vigilant and actively involved in the processes of government via their representatives, either that government will take advantage of their role (acting for their own benefit, not the people's) or worse, the people will blindly trust their government to know better than they what is of most benefit to their society. The people effectively 'employ' their government, paying them through taxes, to provide jobs, manage production and regulate their economy, health services and savings/retirement.

This second view is actually a version of socialism. Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This is an intermediate step between communism and capitalism. A socialist government is 'vested' with the control of production and distribution of goods and services for the benefit of the society. This system minimizes competition and (supposedly) controls costs by telling each person what they can charge for their services or goods. The difficulty is that someone has to manage all that information and communication. Who is doing that, how do they do it with real time data, and how do they get paid? Instead of allowing competition based on supply and demand as well as the quality of products, a regulating agency manages production and distribution, gets paid for doing that job (which either raises the cost of the product or raises taxes) and creates a faulty supply and demand standard. This also creates a society where more and more members are employed by the government in 'regulatory' jobs and less are employed in production and distribution. That means the GNP goes down, the cost of products (or taxes) go up and inflation occurs.

A socialized government model creates an increasing gap between what government thinks is true and what is actually happening, decreasing the likelihood of making decisions which are really beneficial. So giving more power to the government, without sufficient controls and adequate representation of the people they represent, can never be a benefit to their society. The government either makes poor decisions and/or ultimately increases the cost of living in that society.

Of course there are other types of government, but none of them have the advantages of a democratic system and all of them have proven to be inadequate in a modern and educated society to care for the needs of the individual. A democratic society is unique in its provision for every individual to have the same opportunities for development and pursue their creative dreams in a healthy and stable environment.

No comments: