|
|
Are you a journalist or someone that otherwise might have a unique perspective on the world around us today? Would you like to become one of our Bloggers and have a syndicated blog right here on batonrougeteaparty.net? If so, please email us at webops@batonrougeteaparty.net today! In your email, please state your name and share with us why you believe that publishing your views will help educate and deepen our members and readers' understanding of the world around us.
|
|
|
|
 |
May
12
Written by:
lleavi1
5/12/2009 4:25 PM
When examining our elected officials, there are many questions we ask of them, the most basic being:
"How are they planning to benefit from this?"
In other words, how will they act on their innate selfishness?
The idea that we are selfish creatures is hardly debatable. Whether this characteristic is a vice or not depends largely on the context of the person in question.
Consider an individual -- an ordinary individual who holds no government authority over anyone -- practicing self interest in the marketplace. This selfish person, wanting the maximum return for his labors, knows that in order to obtain what he desires he needs consumers. If he wants a consumer to buy from him, he must keep them happy with the services he provides, or they will take their business elsewhere. Therefore, the entrepreneur is incentivized to keep his consumers happy, for this promotes his own interests. This relationship is the foundation of the capitalist philosophy. As a whole, capitalism is a win-win endeavor which promotes the most good and freedom for the most people.
But now consider an individual, an extraordinary individual who has charmed the masses into electing him. How will his inherently selfish nature guide his actions in office? Granted, this official needs reelection in order to keep his power, so that counts as one incentive to keep in himself check and sensitive to the needs of his constituency.
But what if his election cycle is four years, or six? Unlike in the free market, angering the public does not have immediate repercussions for elected officials.
Furthermore, what if he could sidestep this anger through deception?
If the elected official could somehow secure the votes by keeping the public uninformed, then he has secured his power and removed any incentive to act in the interest of the people. All he needs is to secure the votes which legitimize his power, nothing more.
If he can eliminate his dependence on the electorate, then he essentially becomes a validated dictator who has no reason to be interested in the wants of the people. He will proceed to act in his own self-interest, regardless of the will of the majority.
And that is the vice of self-interest -- that it is disastrous in the hands of those with total control and no incentive to care for the happiness of the people they are dealing with. If anything, politicians like the problems because they like to take responsibility for "solving" them, though they scarcely take the responsibility for their creation.
Notice the same rhetorical issues brought up every election, every "problem" that was "supposed" to be fixed the last time someone ran for office. Politicians run their campaign on one idea, being that they can "fix the problem" of the day.
By that logic, if there is a world devoid of problems, then politicians are not necessary except as customary placeholders. Certainly their role in society would be diminished considerably, because they would be considered privileged keepers of a high office rather than "saviors" who are placed upon a dangerous pedestal.
Essentially, politicians need problems in order to ensure their power.
The only way to sidestep such corruption, fear-mongering, and problem perpetuating is by actively holding our elected officials accountable, questioning their motives constantly, and remaining informed citizens.
Tags:
3 comment(s) so far...
Re: The Fundamental Question We Must Ask
It seems that every cause has a champion. Every group has a herald. Every faction has a bullhorn.
Are politicians any different? Are they not just the champions of their constituents' causes?
Personally, I do not want a political landscape filled with like-minded people, then there would be no checks and balances. There lays the problem, anytime you have a diverse group, problems will arise from disagreements in views. What is a problem to one group benefits another. What is a solution to one group is a problem to another. Thus, the problems they “promise” to solve are not solved to our satisfaction because we have been forced to compromise to appease all parties involved.
So what is the answer? Simple, stop listening to what politicians say they will solve or do. Instead, listen to HOW they will solve the problem. For example, politicians say they will reduce the national debt. How will this be done? Raise taxes? Reduce spending? Lower taxes and promote more economic activity to increase taxable revenues?
All I am saying here is that problems will never go away when you have different groups who disagree on what the fundamental causes of the problem are and how to solve them. All we can do, as voters, is to elect people that not only agree that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, but also agree on how to go about fixing it.
By Timothy Chauvin on
5/12/2009 5:35 PM
|
Re: The Fundamental Question We Must Ask
Copy and paste if the links do not work.
Council On Foreign Relations- Article www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/1462
Inflation and the Dollar's Crash-(9min51sec) www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYLb9Vm4xU&feature=related
Conquering the Spirit of Debt- Sept 2003 by Pastor Rod Parsley.- (48min56sec) video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3051024550497129264&hl=en
By Tom Rankin on
8/7/2009 5:05 PM
|
Re: The Fundamental Question We Must Ask
How much does Congress actually care about our health?
H.R.1495
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable.
Cosponsors: None!!!
In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the federal income tax an amount equal to the sum of (1) the amount paid by the taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents, plus (2) the amount contributed to a health savings account of the individual (or the individual's spouse).
A simple way to help pay for medical care by letting Americans keep more of their money. No support.
Instead, Congress wants to spend a few trillion dollars—and impose sweeping regulations.
Also with zero support in the House, by the way:
H.R.2630
Title: To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.
Cosponsors: None
All individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information. No Federal funds shall be used to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of standard unique health identifiers (such as those described in section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act, before the amendment made by subsection (a)(1)) in any Federal, State, or private health care plan.
No information from any electronic medical record maintained by a health care provider and created pursuant to a Federally mandated, created, or funded program may be shared with another health care provider absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved. This shall not apply in a medical emergency. No health care information from an individual medical record shall be placed in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of health care information, absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.
The Federal Government may not require a health care provider to participate in any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information. No health care provider shall be denied participation in, or otherwise sanctioned with respect to participation in, a Federal health care program because the provider refuses to participate in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.
Unless you live in Texas's 14th District, your Congressman is on board with neither of these bills. Let him know these bills are vital steps in improving health care in America. www.CampaignForLiberty.com
By Tom Rankin on
8/9/2009 11:03 AM
|
|
|