<[Bill Leach 940904.11:39 EST(EDT)]
[Rick Marken (940903.1100)]
We have tried to address issues that are "emotionally" significant to
each of us. I believe that we have found that the "professed goal" in
the health care issue is one with which we both agree.
What we did not address but appeared to be assumed by you and indeed I
believe Bill also, is that I accept the "status quo" as the best we can
do. I should have addressed that point long ago.
My personal opinion as to the state of affairs in the American Health
Care system is that it is much better than it could be (there are plenty
of examples of worse implementations), it is rapidly turning to a
disaster, and something must be done to save it, and thus many millions
of people from suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
On the surface at least, it seems that we disagree as to what must be
done. I think that we disagee rather strongly in that area.
I think that the "root" of our disageement is at a level far more
fundamental than anything that we have really been discussing.
If there is anything that I have ever read that supports the objections
to the alleded benefits of the "benevelant dictator" concept it IS PCT.
I think that virtually ANY social system will function for as long as
everyone (or at least an overwhelming majority) of the people believe and
practice the fundamental precepts of that system. The Catholic
monastaries are a good example of a communist type of system that
actually works though it is questionable if such a system could work
where a large percentage of the people were unwilling to co-operate.
History records (though the recording may lack some objectivity or even
perspective) many dictatorships that were appearently "successful" as far
as the citizens were concerned though history usually also indicates that
such systems rarely last longer than the life of the specific dictator
and one can easily question the scope of the term "citizen".
The question here is "Is there any system that is more likely to be
accepted by the 'people' than others?" Sorta like Rand's ideas. They
would almost assuredly work if enough people actually acted in the manner
that she believed that they should.
The matter of a "balance" between totalitarianism and anarchy has been a
burning question at least since man began trying to record answers to any
questions.
I assume that we each "want what we perceive as being 'best' for
ourselves". I also believe that we each believe that what is "best"
overall is not always perceived to be 'best' in the "short run". Simply,
while paying taxes is clearly a "worst short run" situation for me
personally, the long term consequences of not having at least some of
what paying taxes provides would be much worse than not suffering the
short term loss.
Where I think that we differ is in our beliefs concerning the "benevolent
dictator". I am even willing to admit that there are people that could
possibly direct my "own affairs" in a much "better" manner than I can or
do myself, I do not believe that a person or group of people can direct
the affairs of a much larger group of people in general in a manner that
will result in overall "better" performance than is obtained when the
larger group attends to its own affairs.
That is, I believe that "forced control" is fundamentally bad and that a
society will "prosper" only to the extent that it can limit the use of
force by one against another. This goes much deeper and much further
than just government. Every attempt must be made to ensure that the use
of force is limited to very narrowly defined interactions based upon
consistant principles. It is of course almost infinately easier to make
such a statement than it is to state any of the specifics but I think
that the general principle is correct for what most of us believe as a
systems concept concerning "human nature" and the purpose of government.
The moment that someone (or a group of someones) grants authority to
someone else to manage their affairs, the potential for "abuse" exists.
As soon as you grant this power, the person(s) receiving the power will
control their own perceptions and if these are sufficiently consistant
with your own then everything is "fine" and everyone is happy. When they
are not however... what then?
The American System concept was that authority and power should be
guarded and that it should never be relinquished completely nor should it
be even temporarily conferred upon others at a higher level than
absolutely necessary.
The federal government was to have the most restricted powers precisely
because it was "so far removed" from the point from which it gained its
authority. Indeed, every governmental authority "under" the federal
government was to have significant influence over the federal
government's power.
The expanded concept was that cities would be most directly influenced by
their citizens. Since people are at least nominally free to move, the
cities would be affected both by election and the results of their
decisions. Errors could be corrected relatively quickly and would have
limited damage.
Each larger governmental institution would be "supervised" by both the
electorate and by the "lesser" governments. This was never really
implemented of course because the founders recognized that it would be
difficult enough to get the (then independent) states to accept the
National Governmental system that they had proposed much less a proposal
that would completely change their internal structures.
The underlying principle for this whole structure was that while
individuals may "do wrong to other individuals" and should be restricted
in such activity, the more power an individual may acquire the greater
capacity for "wrong doing". While the converse should also be true,
there is nothing in the nature of possessing power that influences either
sort of behaviour.
Happiness of individual people was somehow felt to be a measure or an
operative factor in the overall "goodness" of society. They believed
that generally individuals will endevor to achieve their own happiness
without forced control. They believed that forcing people to do or not
to things in general was detrimental to individual happiness and
therefore to society.
I suspect that they were not fully "alert" to the idea that government
might not be the only source of such "power problems" though they clearly
knew of the effects of Britain's Merchantile but may have felt that it
was an error in governmental structure that allowed such organizations to
wield excessive power and influence (and I personally am not so sure that
they were wrong even yet). Also Alexander Hamilton (and to a lesser
extent George Washington) rather clearly understood that control of the
value of money was control of the country. That aspect of this system
has never been fully implemented anywhere.
Abuses by organization such as the AFofL/CIO, Teamsters Union, AMA, NRDC,
City Bank, General Motors, and others is probably mostly traceable to
action or inaction on the part of the appropriate governmental body.
In a very real sense, no "group" ever accomplished anything. It is
always the actions of individuals controlling their own perceptions that
causes anything to happen (good or bad).
We need then, I think, compelling evidence that a proposal to force or
restrict the freedom to control for an individual is actually in that
individual's best interest. Such is not "provable" and I am not calling
for exacting proof but I do ask that when force is going to be applied to
own ability to control that there at least be compelling evidence that
such an application of force is expected to actually benefit humanity in
general in a significant way. It must be clear to me that the "wrong"
being corrected is actually the factor that is preventing a "better
society".
I am very cynical of "grand schemes". Communism is such a "grand scheme"
and certain (to me anyway) demonstrates it effectiveness well. I am
particularly skeptical of "elitists" plans and especially in areas of
human behaviour, I think that you should be also. You already KNOW that
the experts in human affairs "sciences" are operating from incorrect
understanding of human behaviour. That you should want to concentrate
the influence of such people over others is almost amazing to me.
If you haven't already (or not recently) read the Federalist Papers.
Read especially, what Hamilton had to say about why the proposed
government was structured as it was. What the fears were and what the
doubts and hopes were.
It is clear (to me) that they believed that it was not possible to rely
upon any elitist group. They believed that even the people could not be
relied upon in the "heat of the moment" but that the only chance that
humanity could have would be in a comparitively free society under the
ultimate control of the people being governed.
The system that they created does not exist or at least exists in a form
that differs in many fundamental ways from the original. For example,
they believed that Judges should be isolated from influence as much as
possible from either "public opinion" or "political pressure". However,
they also stated directly that THE SOLE purpose of a "jury of your peers"
was to provide a final VETO over the power of government. The judicial
concept that a "jury's function is solely to judge the facts of the case"
(and sometimes it is specifically stated that the jury is NOT to judge
the merits of or appropriateness of the law in the case) is a direct
assault on that vital principle. I direct you to any law school in this
country for confirmation of the preceeding.
"States Rights" is another of those principles that I "laughed at" along
with millions of other Americans when (particularly) Barry Goldwater was
attacked in the media for his position on the matter. In school, I was
"taught" that such concepts were "old and archaic" and/or were no longer
needed in our "democracy". That is I laughed until I began reading what
the people of that time had to say about such matters. It was then that
I began to realize that such concepts had nothing to do with "improvement
in communications" or accuracy of "public opinion poles" but rather were
concerned with observed behaviour by very deliberative men. Men that
recognized their own foibles and most emphatically recognized that even
they might be tempted to violate the principles that they professed if
the conditions were right.
Were they "infallible"? Of course not, and even a really loose
examination of the conditions of the US today indicates the presents of
many failures to achieve their "lofty" goals.
I personally would like to deal more with the "founding principles" than
any specifically application (such as health care). I believe that the
number of factors affecting specific issues is too great to discuss
without first working through the underlying concepts and principles.
-bill