It occurred to me a bit ago that the Fourth of July, our national day for celebrating our independence from England, will be upon us in fairly short order and that it might be a worthy subject for some discussion. Unfortunately, perhaps, that almost certainly means I must stray further than I generally like to into what we call “POLITICS.” I really don’t enjoy doing that, but it seems to me that there are things (even about THAT subject) which should be said and, since I’ve been thinking about them a good deal recently, maybe I should say them.
According to Wikipedia (Not the BEST possible source perhaps, but one which generally provides fairly reasonable discussions.)
According to Wikipedia (Not the BEST possible source perhaps, but one which generally provides fairly reasonable discussions.)
That strikes me as a fairly practical way to approach the general nature of a political system. But, it doesn’t always seem to be as widely accepted as I think it should be.
You see, it appears to have become fashionable in some circles to start from the assumption that our country’s history can only be viewed in terms of our being the perfect nation, always kind, fair and helpful to all of it’s citizens, who, OF COURSE, are and always have been treated by their government with the GREATEST possible fairness, etc., etc., etc. Anything else is suggested (at least by those people) as being UNPATRIOTIC and shouldn’t be taught, tolerated, or allowed a position in public mind.
This makes me wonder what those folks would say if we reminded them that this country (yes, The United States of America) is, IN FACT, founded on numerous acts of TREASON and that the signing and publication of the Declaration of Independence, which we are about to celebrate, is only ONE of a fairly large number of such acts. And, no, I do NOT mean treason in any modest sense of the word. The Declaration is, after all, nothing less than a statement denying the validity of an anointed King and His government to rule over what had clearly been established as His legal property and over His citizens (that is, us) who were occupying it.
Now, what had happened was that SOME of those citizens had decided to reject the King’s authority because they felt that they were not being given the same treatment as others of his subjects. That led them to decide that they, and the lands they occupied, should, in fact, be legally theirs, NOT HIS. And, they already had, actually, taken up arms against His soldiers in an attempt to force Him to grant them their “right” to establish THEIR OWN government in place of His. Now, this WAS NOT what one might think of as an established/accepted idea at the time! And, it certainly, was NOT anything like standard operating procedure. I confess that I am not a real scholar of American History, nor of the American Revolution specifically, but one doesn’t need to look too closely at the history of Western Civilization to discover that this concept was, in fact, quite a novel idea at the time.
I AM, however, a bit of a scholar of American theatre (at least I think that I am), and I have been led to believe that while Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards’ musical, 1776, is a good deal more “historical fiction” than actual history, it does seem to be generally accepted as a reasonably fair representation of the process of the Declaration’s adoption. Hence, I have few serious concerns about suggesting that the dialogue of that musical probably deals with the ideas current at that moment with a reasonable degree of accuracy. For example, I am quite sure that these lines between Ben Franklin and John Adams are quite plausible, even if the lack of actual records of the proceedings do not appear to have survived to support the idea that they are actual quotes.
You see, it appears to have become fashionable in some circles to start from the assumption that our country’s history can only be viewed in terms of our being the perfect nation, always kind, fair and helpful to all of it’s citizens, who, OF COURSE, are and always have been treated by their government with the GREATEST possible fairness, etc., etc., etc. Anything else is suggested (at least by those people) as being UNPATRIOTIC and shouldn’t be taught, tolerated, or allowed a position in public mind.
This makes me wonder what those folks would say if we reminded them that this country (yes, The United States of America) is, IN FACT, founded on numerous acts of TREASON and that the signing and publication of the Declaration of Independence, which we are about to celebrate, is only ONE of a fairly large number of such acts. And, no, I do NOT mean treason in any modest sense of the word. The Declaration is, after all, nothing less than a statement denying the validity of an anointed King and His government to rule over what had clearly been established as His legal property and over His citizens (that is, us) who were occupying it.
Now, what had happened was that SOME of those citizens had decided to reject the King’s authority because they felt that they were not being given the same treatment as others of his subjects. That led them to decide that they, and the lands they occupied, should, in fact, be legally theirs, NOT HIS. And, they already had, actually, taken up arms against His soldiers in an attempt to force Him to grant them their “right” to establish THEIR OWN government in place of His. Now, this WAS NOT what one might think of as an established/accepted idea at the time! And, it certainly, was NOT anything like standard operating procedure. I confess that I am not a real scholar of American History, nor of the American Revolution specifically, but one doesn’t need to look too closely at the history of Western Civilization to discover that this concept was, in fact, quite a novel idea at the time.
I AM, however, a bit of a scholar of American theatre (at least I think that I am), and I have been led to believe that while Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards’ musical, 1776, is a good deal more “historical fiction” than actual history, it does seem to be generally accepted as a reasonably fair representation of the process of the Declaration’s adoption. Hence, I have few serious concerns about suggesting that the dialogue of that musical probably deals with the ideas current at that moment with a reasonable degree of accuracy. For example, I am quite sure that these lines between Ben Franklin and John Adams are quite plausible, even if the lack of actual records of the proceedings do not appear to have survived to support the idea that they are actual quotes.
I think the point being made here amounts, primarily, to the notion that such words as “treason” are often rather slippery to define and that it’s not all that uncommon for what one person sees as “patriotism,” to be seen by someone else as “treason!” My suspicion is that such terms are actually dependent on the point of view of the person who uses them, and are not as easily defined in terms of having clearly-established, absolute meanings, as some would like to suggest.
To set the record straight, I tend to believe, along with our Founding Father, John Adams, that:
To set the record straight, I tend to believe, along with our Founding Father, John Adams, that:
Or, to put it in the words of the Declaration:
I have to acknowledge that, given what I know about the late 18th Century, most people would probably have agreed that, if that statement wasn’t treasonous, it was about as close as one could get to it as is possible, at that time.
On the other hand, given the current state of affairs in the 250 year old nation which the Declaration eventually created, I have come to notice that this does NOT seem to be the notion of government which is universally accepted, even in the United States these days, at least by some. At the moment, there seem to be all sorts of differing and (at least to me) somewhat disturbing concepts as to what the “proper” nature of government might, in fact be.
Now, I tend to think that Mr. Adams’ statement (see above) that a government’s job includes “… the happiness of the people.” goes a long way towards being the most satisfactory statement of the purposes of any government which wishes to have the support of its governed.
Please note that this definition seems to strongly suggest that the most desirable way for a government to function is to see that it strives to do the best that it can to assure that the maximum number of citizens achieve the maximum amount of "happiness.” That’s quite a difficult and complicated process and almost assuredly there always will be some people who will wish for a “better” deal, or that the government had made different choices, etc. I can accept that as both reasonable and likely. However, that doesn’t mean that the underlying principle of establishing the maximum possible happiness in the society should not be sought after, in spite of the probability that perfection and universal agreement are unlikely to be reached. The desired “perfect” end may well be unlikely, but the AIM should always be get as close as possible.
Now, over the roughly 250 years since the Declaration was signed, there have been various groups within our society which have suggested that we are most likely to achieve this goal by applying various conceptual schemes. One of the more common ones has been that our government should be run like a business. I would suggest that this “business model” is NOT reasonable, if one considers the actual nature of a business.
AS I understand it, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, be they a single individual, a partnership (of any size), or the traditional concept of a shareholder, i.e. one who owns a share of the business (and is therefore partially responsible for its operation and receives a portion of its profits, if any). Thus, a business has no, definitional, concern for the “happiness of society.” That’s neither its function, nor its intent, NOR SHOULD IT BE! The raison d’être of a business is to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that idea, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Adams’ notion of the purpose of a government. A business’s obligation is to create profits for its owners, not to create “happiness” for the general public.
This helps to explain the ongoing tension between business and government. A business exists to serve its ownership, while a government exists to try to assure the “happiness of society.” That notion suggests to me that a government’s primary purpose is to provide certain, necessary services to its citizenry. Those services, which vary widely, usually are taken to include the provision and maintenance of public facilities (education, roads, sewer, water, electricity, public health, etc.), preservation of the public peace (police & corrections), maintenance of a system of jurisprudence designed and intended to be reasonable and fair (the court system), and protection against fire, natural disaster, crop failure, etc. They also might include actions to prevent the spread of disease, famine, etc., and actions to build good will among nations, in order to seek to create and maintain broad political stability, reduce the possibility of wars, etc.
Taxes and fees are collected by governments to provide the means to pay for these services. But, the SERVICES, themselves, are the only things which even vaguely resemble the “profits” of a government since those governments do NOT have ANY MEANS to redistribute excess “income” to its “shareholders” (citizens). And, that is NOT a government’s function, nor should it be. Therefore, ideally, taxes and fees should be limited so that they only cover the costs of providing government services, with reasonable provision for maintenance and needed upgrades. And, such taxes and fees should be assessed based on the principle that all citizens (personal and corporate) which make use of the services of the government should contribute to the costs of providing those services in a fair and equitable manner.
That would appear to explain why many governments have legislative bodies and judicial (court) branches. Those bodies exist for the purpose of determining when and where governmental services are needed and how taxes and fees should be distributed, along with determining any penalties which might be assessed on those who violate the established rules, etc.
The Declaration says:
On the other hand, given the current state of affairs in the 250 year old nation which the Declaration eventually created, I have come to notice that this does NOT seem to be the notion of government which is universally accepted, even in the United States these days, at least by some. At the moment, there seem to be all sorts of differing and (at least to me) somewhat disturbing concepts as to what the “proper” nature of government might, in fact be.
Now, I tend to think that Mr. Adams’ statement (see above) that a government’s job includes “… the happiness of the people.” goes a long way towards being the most satisfactory statement of the purposes of any government which wishes to have the support of its governed.
Please note that this definition seems to strongly suggest that the most desirable way for a government to function is to see that it strives to do the best that it can to assure that the maximum number of citizens achieve the maximum amount of "happiness.” That’s quite a difficult and complicated process and almost assuredly there always will be some people who will wish for a “better” deal, or that the government had made different choices, etc. I can accept that as both reasonable and likely. However, that doesn’t mean that the underlying principle of establishing the maximum possible happiness in the society should not be sought after, in spite of the probability that perfection and universal agreement are unlikely to be reached. The desired “perfect” end may well be unlikely, but the AIM should always be get as close as possible.
Now, over the roughly 250 years since the Declaration was signed, there have been various groups within our society which have suggested that we are most likely to achieve this goal by applying various conceptual schemes. One of the more common ones has been that our government should be run like a business. I would suggest that this “business model” is NOT reasonable, if one considers the actual nature of a business.
AS I understand it, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, be they a single individual, a partnership (of any size), or the traditional concept of a shareholder, i.e. one who owns a share of the business (and is therefore partially responsible for its operation and receives a portion of its profits, if any). Thus, a business has no, definitional, concern for the “happiness of society.” That’s neither its function, nor its intent, NOR SHOULD IT BE! The raison d’être of a business is to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that idea, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Adams’ notion of the purpose of a government. A business’s obligation is to create profits for its owners, not to create “happiness” for the general public.
This helps to explain the ongoing tension between business and government. A business exists to serve its ownership, while a government exists to try to assure the “happiness of society.” That notion suggests to me that a government’s primary purpose is to provide certain, necessary services to its citizenry. Those services, which vary widely, usually are taken to include the provision and maintenance of public facilities (education, roads, sewer, water, electricity, public health, etc.), preservation of the public peace (police & corrections), maintenance of a system of jurisprudence designed and intended to be reasonable and fair (the court system), and protection against fire, natural disaster, crop failure, etc. They also might include actions to prevent the spread of disease, famine, etc., and actions to build good will among nations, in order to seek to create and maintain broad political stability, reduce the possibility of wars, etc.
Taxes and fees are collected by governments to provide the means to pay for these services. But, the SERVICES, themselves, are the only things which even vaguely resemble the “profits” of a government since those governments do NOT have ANY MEANS to redistribute excess “income” to its “shareholders” (citizens). And, that is NOT a government’s function, nor should it be. Therefore, ideally, taxes and fees should be limited so that they only cover the costs of providing government services, with reasonable provision for maintenance and needed upgrades. And, such taxes and fees should be assessed based on the principle that all citizens (personal and corporate) which make use of the services of the government should contribute to the costs of providing those services in a fair and equitable manner.
That would appear to explain why many governments have legislative bodies and judicial (court) branches. Those bodies exist for the purpose of determining when and where governmental services are needed and how taxes and fees should be distributed, along with determining any penalties which might be assessed on those who violate the established rules, etc.
The Declaration says:
Given the above, I find it hard to accept the idea that “a government is like a business” has any real degree of credibility, or logic. I do not deny that many businesses make real efforts to create a “positive corporate image” by making charitable donations, supporting hospitals and museums, sponsoring various public events (sometimes even “free” ones) and engaging in many sorts of activities to build customer loyalty and positive feelings on the part of the public towards that business. But, I also would urge people to remember that a profit-making business’ real function is not to increase “happiness,” but to generate profits. It seems exceedingly naive for anyone to believe otherwise. In simplest terms, wealthy business owners do not set out to be “job creators!” They MAY create jobs as a part of their business plan, but it is because they need employees to continue to make profits (or to increase them) and not because it’s a “good thing.”
As I attempt to draw this to a close, I would like to include a couple of parting thoughts. It seems to me that it has been demonstrated many times in history that, as the “Wizard” says in the first Wicked movie: “The best way to bring folks together is to give them a real good enemy.” This seems (at least at times) to be the approach being utilized by our current administration to insist that it needs to have the power to control our society.
This sort of action suggests that the attempt is being made to create hate, because some folks are so desperately afraid of not retaining the privileges they have enjoyed in the past, that they wish to require ALL of us to hate those whom they blame for their potential loss of power and privilege.
Now, being urged to hate someone, or something, seems unlikely to increase “… the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people.…”, which Mr. Adams suggested was the true function of government. It really seems more likely to be a sign that some folks are just fearful that they might not be the biggest “winners.” That, of course, would be quite intolerable for those who wish to believe that they are “better” than the rest of us.
I would also suggest that readers consider the following quote from Robert A. Heinlein:
As I attempt to draw this to a close, I would like to include a couple of parting thoughts. It seems to me that it has been demonstrated many times in history that, as the “Wizard” says in the first Wicked movie: “The best way to bring folks together is to give them a real good enemy.” This seems (at least at times) to be the approach being utilized by our current administration to insist that it needs to have the power to control our society.
This sort of action suggests that the attempt is being made to create hate, because some folks are so desperately afraid of not retaining the privileges they have enjoyed in the past, that they wish to require ALL of us to hate those whom they blame for their potential loss of power and privilege.
Now, being urged to hate someone, or something, seems unlikely to increase “… the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people.…”, which Mr. Adams suggested was the true function of government. It really seems more likely to be a sign that some folks are just fearful that they might not be the biggest “winners.” That, of course, would be quite intolerable for those who wish to believe that they are “better” than the rest of us.
I would also suggest that readers consider the following quote from Robert A. Heinlein:
In the light of some recent efforts on the part of some of our so-called “leaders” to encourage our government to take precipitous actions towards controlling the public’s access to ideas which THEY don’t agree with by banishing books from public libraries, attempting to control, or abolish the public media, redefining the “acceptable” curriculum in schools to suit “proper” ideas, pressuring higher education to eliminate faculty, programs and materials which may disagree with their policies and using religious criteria for the creation and enforcement of laws, I believe that Heinlein (who I do not always agree with) may have a point worthy of consideration.
I assume that I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, unless the non-uniformed, masked thugs, who seem to be our government police forces these days, come to haul me off to Venezuela, or someplace equally unlikely.
Personally, since I can trace my ancestors presence on this land back to 1620 (which I don’t say to brag, because that doesn’t make me any better than more recent immigrants), but to reinforce the idea that such facts would seem to make it difficult for them to claim that I am an “Illegal immigrant.” Of course, the vast majority other US citizens are, in fact, immigrants, although of a somewhat later arrival date. That could, of course, not pose any real challenge for some of our leader/fanatics, who don’t seem to consider FACTS as being of much importance, so I’m making no positive statements that it won’t happen to me.
Anyway, if the goons don’t get me, I plan to return in a couple of weeks. I hope you’ll come back, too.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
I assume that I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, unless the non-uniformed, masked thugs, who seem to be our government police forces these days, come to haul me off to Venezuela, or someplace equally unlikely.
Personally, since I can trace my ancestors presence on this land back to 1620 (which I don’t say to brag, because that doesn’t make me any better than more recent immigrants), but to reinforce the idea that such facts would seem to make it difficult for them to claim that I am an “Illegal immigrant.” Of course, the vast majority other US citizens are, in fact, immigrants, although of a somewhat later arrival date. That could, of course, not pose any real challenge for some of our leader/fanatics, who don’t seem to consider FACTS as being of much importance, so I’m making no positive statements that it won’t happen to me.
Anyway, if the goons don’t get me, I plan to return in a couple of weeks. I hope you’ll come back, too.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
P.S. Oh, by the way, I hope you all take some time to celebrate the Fourth with family and friends, but remember that virtually ALL fireworks (about 90%) are currently manufactured in and imported from China, which might make them more expensive this year, if the tariffs are in effect, or not “temporarily” suspended.
RSS Feed