Ruminations on the Role of Government and the Power of Collective Systems, Pt. 1

Maybe this is just me, but if the government has a job, IMO, it is to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society. I think of it like a helium balloon, people are the helium. It is limiting, but that limitation is with reason, like the pressure building in the balloon - it has a purpose, to gather enough of the helium, contained in one place to allow the balloon to float. Within the confines of the balloon is where we exist and if every country is a balloon, we exist tethered together in a bunch. I think there's more exchange between countries than is possible with balloons, so the metaphor basically stops at the individual level or the bunch of balloons are all contained with a larger balloon - if little balloons pop, then the big balloon suffers. If the supply of helium is extended to represent not just people but resources, then it should be recognized that the supply is limited and the distribution unequal. I also understand that part of a government's existence is the preservation of a specific way of life (which is often interpreted militarily in the United States, though there are 'softer' options pursued by other nations), including but not limited to the values of that group of people. Values I might add that are rather diverse and at times contradictory; re: freedom and equality.

Ok, so that out of the way, if the purpose of government is to allow the people space to exist as freely as remains mutually beneficial and functioning (a basic social contract, guaranteed rights, known, mutually accepted limitations and restrictions), it is an open system, one of constant discussion and revision - and while I may hold the opinion that our representative bodies are neither truly representative or in-fact competent - this dialogue is how I understand the lengthy deliberation of our (US) legislative branch. Like when they couldn't figure out whether the US should continue on course or collapse into a debt crisis. By an open system I mean that it is a system that is not set in stone, though it is still a system and therefore contains a few mostly immutable aspects, like the specifics of the social contract mentioned above. In many ways, this is exactly what our constitution is, the base from which we operate. Sometimes the base needs to be changed, sometimes the base needs to be updated, sometimes the base needs to be cleaned up, reorganized and shined - the amendments to the US constitution are an example of this.

The problem with systems seems to lie with their inability to find expression in their idealized form. Socialist systems work on paper but socialism has a mixed track record and derivatives of it have failed miserably. But I'd like to explore a different example, beating up on socialism is played out. It's too easy, and so details go overlooked and only the overall critique stands out. Instead, I'd like to explore the example of a meritocracy in application. I feel that human social groups tend towards meritocracy. We follow leaders that lead because their leadership is successful, even if it's only successful in corralling us and keeping dissent at a manageable level. Capitalist economics is a fantastic example of meritocratic expression, but it does not live up to the ideal. In capitalism, what is profitable succeeds and profit is pursued - the side effects of this system include rapid technological advancement, a ton of crap, an exponentially expansive system and both the scarcity and plenty of resources - but my point is that it falls within the realm of pursuing profits. What is profitable is successful, but I would argue that all that is profitable is not mutually beneficial, and not all that is mutually beneficial is profitable. That capitalist systems create the opportunity for philanthropy is beneficial, however if that opportunity is gained at an unjustifiable expense to another group of people, or the environment, giving a little back to your pet projects doesn't justify the system as mutually beneficial. I believe that philanthropy exists in a meritocratic system, which I believe betrays an aspect of our humanity - that we feel compelled to take care of each other, or at least our in-groups. My point is that the expression of a meritocracy as capitalist economics, does not live up to the idea of an idealized meritocracy, either because we're too 'weak' and wind up helping each other out or because the meritocracy itself becomes too focused on the pursuit of the rewards and becomes corrupted from the grand purity of ideology.

I find the theory of evolution to be another meritocratic system, one that also cannot remain pure in its application. As the species adapt, they adapt to the needs of their environment and what works, lives and survives, possibly thrives - but it's only in relation to that, to survival. Ultimately, while certain aesthetic traits come into and out of vogue, representing potential mates as capable of providing/thriving and/or creating offspring that will be preferred breeding partners (sexy son hypothesis), what works is what stays alive, not necessarily the prettiest or the smartest or the strongest (anything "-est" seems to have mertocratic implications) survive, survival itself is the meritocratic expression of evolutionary theory. Again, it's a limited application that does not find itself living up to the idealized meritocracy.

Bringing up mate selection also opens the door to discussing kin/family bonds and the idea that part of what drives an individual human being is to care for his/her mate and progeny - this is not universal, as across all species attractive mates are not always as attractive in the long term as they look in the short term - it is however rather undeniable that many human beings (and I mean many by percentage not merely sheer quantity of numbers, though the percentage does give it that) do in fact care greatly for their offspring, hope for a better life for their children, and attempt to provide some form of privilege (from college savings to inheritance), familial education and enculturation. This is not meritocratic, it is something else and the effect that this has on a capitalist economic system is further corrupting, as it creates disparity between privilege and unprivilege. Like the old adage, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this is the effect on a system that should sound more like the American dream where anyone can make it big if they're talented and dedicated enough.

Idealized systems do not work in reality, they are dreams that must be realized and seldom live up to such lofty standards. Socialists are used to hearing this, but it seems to me that it is seldom applied to more successful* systems, like capitalism. Capitalism is highly functional, but it is completely self-absorbed - odd how this can also be used to represent those who succeed in capitalist systems as they must be driven to a certain extent and driven people are certainly absorbed with their purpose, which seems related to the concept of self-absorption. I'm not saying it's a negative quality, though I would point out what the big picture effects can be; re: collateral damage, systems that perpetuate inequality for no other reason than the interplay of horded resources held by small groups, and the constant movement of the remaining resources.

The overarching point here is that we cannot look to realized systems to save us from ourselves, they cannot, we have to find new, better ideas to bring into reality - to bring about and then try to improve upon. Government cannot save us from ourselves, and we are everything. We are corporations, we are homeless, we are the freeloaders, the workaholics, the leeches, creeps, vampires and golden gods of our economies, our world, of our countries, of our balloon(s). Applied government is as much a failure in it's transition from ideology to reality as anything else, and perhaps this is a part of the reason the US government was set up as a vacuum, a negative space where the government limits itself - and in this respect I completely understand and agree with the calls for a smaller federal government, it fits right into my idea of what government is/should do. Even fits my metaphor, as the balloon should be flexible but ultimately no matter how big the balloon gets you never get more balloon, gotta take it easy, let it stretch out slowly so it doesn't pop. My problem with the call for smaller government, less taxes, and blah blah blah is that it is in direct opposition to what I believe the government should do (to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society) and what our government actually does and how our government is actually put together.

The two party system creates unrealistic majorities by pre-lumping diverse groups together (as opposed to letting them self-bond over issues - though some of our current party system has roots in exactly those sorts of alliances, ultimately the US' two party blanket is nearly as old as the US) and a stagnant pond in terms of corruption (it's easier to influence 2-5 candidates than it is to influence 13-17). One problem with democracy is the threat of mob-rule, majority rule without thought or sentiment for the minority group. The past decade has been a horrid example of this on both partisan sides, each side with such a different agenda and radical minorities within the parties who are dissatisfied with the actions of their party at large. It's impossible not to be dissatisfied with the party at large, it's a false and imposed alliance of ideologies at best, there will always be dissent - but not only is the dissenting minority being rode roughshod and overlooked in general in the United States over the past decade, but the minorities within each political subgroup are experiencing the same. This is a failure of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their social contract and a failure of the government itself.

The tremendous influence of business and capital in the US government, at both the state and federal level, is another issue of contention. What is good for business is supposed to be good for the people, so in essence trickle-down economics and low regulation seem to be the order of the day to create a better world, or at least a better America - but as good as that idea might seem, the records of the past three decades show otherwise and in fact contain strong echoes of earlier financial catastrophes. In a democracy, of, by and for the people, I would ask, who should have more influence over the representatives - people or other entities and interests? I would say people, as ultimately, they are what a country is about and comprised of and what government is supposedly in place to protect and preserve, but without seriously revamping our economic and social systems, government action against business and the free/open-market is mostly counter-productive. The breakdown lies here: that the power-structure functions for a small group of people and grants them incredible influence over each other and over the society in general is a failure of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their own social contract and a failure of the government itself.

The pull of the military/industrial complex is my final point. While the industrial aspect is seldom worried about, many people on both sides of the aisle, from nobodies to somebodies, are concerned with the military actions and investments of the US government. While some see it as a necessary action, others deride it as extravagant or downright excessive - and while the idea that our soldiers are fighting so I can live free is heartwarming and inspiring, I personally find that our military has been applied to protect economic interests (and not necessarily those of the US people) more often than simply standing in defense of freedom, as it did in the Cold War with communism. Seems there was less actual fighting (at least by the two actual opponents) as well. As the industrial aspect has already been addressed as the influence of capital and business on our government, it nearly goes without saying that the military aspect is even more frightening as it is quite literally, embedded in both our government and our economy, which gives it tremendous influence over both, and winds up sitting on a tremendous mountain of the resources of both. Oddly enough, our constitution stands opposed to a free-standing army (and by that implication and other isolationist sentiments, against world-wide military hegemony) though it does provide for the necessity of a strong navy (and in modernity, I'd also say air force) - blah blah blah, this isn't the problem, the problem is the application. Military and intelligence spending make up a massive amount of the US military budget, but how much of that is a waste of resoruces? (Ex: intelligence failures promoted as honest truth being instrumental leading the country to war, that proved to be costly, inaccurate and suspect.) And how much of what they're being applied to winds up being a waste of life and purpose, as if the soldier's are not actually fighting for the government to be able to allow the people a functioning, beneficial, diverse and expressive society, isn't that a waste of government and individual resources? This is a breakdown of democracy, a failure of the people to uphold their social contract and a failure of the government itself.

So, when I say I'm all for raising taxes it's within this framework - and comes with the caveat that I can't really support it now, as I don't agree with even half of how those tax dollars are spent. And when I say that I'm afraid of corporations and corporate power, it doesn't mean that I don't see the benefits of capitalism and the dangers of less functional systems - what I really mean is, the system isn't working well (income inequality is growing, boom-and-bust bubblenomics is constantly threatening whatever success we have, the national debt is growing by leaps and bounds by the second, etc.) the way it is and we should find a better way of doing things - but before we can even get to that point, we should at least uphold our end of the bargain now, and fight fight fight for that social contract that was so carefully crafted. The one American soldiers really did fight and die for.

So, yeah, I'm all for public works (schools, roads, public transporation, hell, even non-profit healthcare option) but I'm disappointed in their quality and presence (even our roads are kind of a joke) - and I'm all for more taxes/obligations when it comes to our corporations and those who are incredibly, filthy, to the extreme, have more than they could ever really spend in ten generations, wealthy (I really think we need upper tax brackets for those who make more than $350,000 a year and/or that those in those groups should feel compelled to do incredible things for their surrounding communities - whether that's achieved with the threat of extreme-higher taxes for those who don't or perhaps a shift in consciousness. While I can't necessarily support corporate sponsorship of regions the way things stand (I'd like see to kinder, gentler corporations that were more democratic and cooperative), it'd be foolish not to point out that it happens and is happening.

Things have changed tremendously, and much for the better over the last two hundred and thirty years - but there are problems and BS partisan politics aren't a solution. They are a method of keeping us occupied, like treading water, while hoping things work themselves out. In the history of US politics, the government has taken hands on and hands off approaches, from raising the bar on the lower end of the quality of life for unskilled workers, to busting up (some) monopolies, to laissez-faire economic strategies - we go from extreme to extreme, like this girlfriend I had where she'd blast the A/C and then the heater, and then repeat again and again because she was hot, then cold, then hot, then cold. Maybe it's time to roll down the window, even just crack it instead, to try something different or at least try some things differently.



* - successful, meaning that they can currently be seen at work and are functioning well for at least some humans; but it should be noted that by this applied definition of successful, socialism could be included as it is/has work/ed for some humans.