The Paradox of Government

The government is created to serve the people, but to do so, one must first know people's demands. This creates two problems:

1. How can the government know the people when their wages are much higher than the average? In other words, people in the decision making process are often at an economic level above the ordinary citizens, so to know the lives of commoners can be a challenge.

and

2. How can one not expect corruption when government wages are so low? When those in power discover they can make many times their normal wages if they accept bribes, the temptation may be too much and corruption occurs. Corruption will then spread if unchecked, as the underlying problem of low wages remains unsolved. However, if the government employee discovers bribes can only increase their allowance by a small percentage, while the risk of getting caught and fired outweighs the benefit of bribery, then corruption goes down, and the system functions as normal.

It is between these two poles that checks whether a government system survives or dies, because a lean on either side signifies potential trouble. The first problem is solved in a democracy by having the people vote for those who come to power. This problem can also be reduced if those making decisions know people's opinions through technology like the internet and the news, plus other sources such as relatives to find what the people demand. An outcome of the first problem is NGOs (non-governmental organizations), who help those in need without government participation. Thus, the government can greatly increase their service by encouraging the development of NGOs, because ultimately, it is the knowledgeable citizenry that knows best about themselves. The second problem of determining government wages may be best set in a free-market system by the people, as well as access to information like free speech, which can provide a check on corrupt officials. It is often the case that demand for a service exceeds the supply due to laws and regulations, so people bribe those in charge to get the service, and this is corruption. Although it is the government's job to conserve resources and promote sustainability, a lack of resources or strict regulations often increase the chances of corruption that can cripple a system. Finally, it is said the government is only as good as its people, so having an educated and knowledgeable citizenry is the best bet against social ills, which is why a free-press, open information, research, and books are so important to the future. Afterall, knowledge is enriching; it is not or ever will be dangerous. Problems exist because there is not enough knowledge.

It's not hard to know "the people's" demands. It's simply to be able to lead a better life.

The problem is *how* that is achieved. In that regard, a government that tries to cater to everybody is doomed to failure. If it simply tries to satisfy the demands of as many individual interest groups as possible, it is doomed to mediocrity.

A good government, like any other in a leadership, requires vision. It is the ability to see that which others are unable to see, and not just trying to do what others what done. A good government need to serve the people, yes, but it also needs to *lead*.

Resources are finite. As long as they are finite, there will always be inequities. As long as there is power over others, there will always be corruption. I would love to get a million dollar Iraq contract where I only have to spend $50,0000 of it on what the contract requires me to do and then I get to pocket the rest as legal profit. Where do I get in line for that? That's where the people you know gets you that contract and not anyone without those contacts but fully capable of carrying out that contract. That's cronyism. And cronyism in any other country is called corruption.

NGOs are not devoid of corruption. There have been non-profit organizations who will spend more money on publicity and parties than the causes they supposedly represent. Some even create awards presented at lavish galas just so they can meet their favorite movie star who's being honored. Of course they'll say it gives them great advertising for the cause. Which means more money for their stunts. And what the hell are non-materialist Buddhist temples in the West charging $10,000 USD for people to join? But the limosine liberals are glad to pay.

Ryz05 said:

Finally, it is said the government is only as good as its people, so having an educated and knowledgeable citizenry is the best bet against social ills, which is why a free-press, open information, research, and books are so important to the future. Afterall, knowledge is enriching; it is not or ever will be dangerous. Problems exist because there is not enough knowledge.

Click to expand...

What happens when organizations decide to use these open information vehicles to disseminate ideological propaganda and misinformation? Nobody has the time or leisure to verify the accuracy of every piece of information they hear or read about. Not everyone is capable of, or even interested in, critical thinking.

Furthermore, many issues requires one to be knowledgeable in certain areas to make the correct decisions. Take the issue of Climate Change. Unless you're a environmental scientist, and you've spent time review the climate studies, how would you be able to comment on the threat of global warming? Yet, that isn't preventing people from taking up this cause, on both sides of the debate.

You *could* try to educate the people, but climate science is a complex science that can take a lifetime to master. How would you be able to make the average Joe understand it? What happens is that the information ends up being oversimplified, or even deliberated slanted to present a particular view. The result of that becomes essentially a propaganda war: the one with the best mouthpiece and marketing strategy wins the debate, and gets to decide how to resolve the issue. Fact often has nothing to do with it.

If the two sides of this issue end up in a stalemate, as is the case with climate change, what happens is that nothing gets done while people continue to argue with each other about it.

Ryz05 said:

The first problem is solved in a democracy by having the people vote for those who come to power.

Click to expand...

When those in power have enough money, voting becomes a ceremonial practice, thus spawning problem one. Just ask yourself when was the last time that a competent decision maker was voted into office.

There is a misconception that public opinions can influence decision makers. In reality, it is the opposite where the decision makers steer public opinions through the use of wealth.

Ryz05 said:

This problem can also be reduced if those making decisions know people's opinions through technology like the internet and the news, plus other sources such as relatives to find what the people demand.

Click to expand...

How many decision makers actually interest in people's opinion? When was the last time you heard about decision makers logging onto Internet forums to check on how average citizens view the government?

Ryz05 said:

An outcome of the first problem is NGOs (non-governmental organizations), who help those in need without government participation.

Click to expand...

NGOs' goal is to help themselves, not those in need. Ultimately, NGOs are just places where like-minded people got together to plan out how they may make their own ideologies the dominated ideologies. The Democrat and Republican parties are themselves a form of NGO, and from them you can see how well your theory have worked.

Ryz05 said:

Thus, the government can greatly increase their service by encouraging the development of NGOs, because ultimately, it is the knowledgeable citizenry that knows best about themselves.

Click to expand...

Citizenry is not knowledgeable. An average individual may be knowledgeable about what is best for himself, but if you put him in the decision-making chair, he would have no idea what to do.

Ryz05 said:

The second problem of determining government wages may be best set in a free-market system by the people, as well as access to information like free speech, which can provide a check on corrupt officials. It is often the case that demand for a service exceeds the supply due to laws and regulations, so people bribe those in charge to get the service, and this is corruption. Although it is the government's job to conserve resources and promote sustainability, a lack of resources or strict regulations often increase the chances of corruption that can cripple a system.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? As it stands, this paragraph makes little sense.

Ryz05 said:

Finally, it is said the government is only as good as its people, so having an educated and knowledgeable citizenry is the best bet against social ills, which is why a free-press, open information, research, and books are so important to the future. Afterall, knowledge is enriching; it is not or ever will be dangerous. Problems exist because there is not enough knowledge.

Click to expand...

People being ignorant is indeed one problem, but the lack of people's ability to think critically is a bigger problem. Children are taught from a very young age as what is right and wrong, instead of being taught how to tell rights from wrongs. When these children grow up, they lack the ability to think critically and would believe everything they see on TV and newspaper as real. To make things worst, the quality of education is in a continuous decline and shows no sign of stopping, something no doubt governments like to see. As to free-press, it is just a way for some governments to say "you have all the information you ever need on TV and newspaper" and discourage people from looking at "inappropiate" sources for information. At the end of the day, it is just another form of cencorship.