In listening to the most popular debates of our day it is clear that varying views about PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS form the basis of these debates.
From "Multiple Tax Payer Paid Health Care" to "Public School Funding Levels" to the balance between "Local Taxes versus Federal Taxation" - all of them have their roots in PRIVATE PROPERTY and the means by which a group of individuals can work to reduce their exposure to taxation by the government.
The Political Boundary
I keep having to repeat the results of my research about how political boundaries were constructed in this nation and others. They serve as an important container by which two or more groups of people with differing interests can live together. They are able to "agree to disagree" about some of the cultural and economic issues that divide them. At the same time the are able to share what is in the "common wealth's" best interests and remain stronger as a divided but unified unit.
I continuiously go back to the motivating assumption for the city charter. Cities were formed from previously "unincorporated lands". These community leaders took inventory of their human resources, industry resources, natural resources and the community will to prosper and then petitioned the state for a charter for their city.
The key power that is granted by the city charter is the power to do self-taxation. The money that used to flow to the county or state for the provision of services - now gets collected by the local municipal power. They are then responsible for delivering their own basic services - fire, police, sanitation, street repair, etc. The underlying assumption of the citizenry was "If we had control over our own money we could produce a better lifestyle and standard of living for our people".
This analysis is fundamental to understanding the forces behind the arguments of today.
To some people the cruel notion of limiting a political district's (city, community, or county) resulting fortunes to the economic activity that is contained within this district is tantamount to constructing a refugee camp and then turning the nation's back upon the inhabitants. They know that something will happen but it is not bound to be good.
Thus these forces seek to trample hundreds of years of government hierarchy and instead change the very function of our government. No longer will we have demands upon the local government to field a functional financial model for the benefit of their people. They instead seek to have a more nationalized flow of financial resources, having it drip downward. Thus the local entity now becomes the DISTRIBUTION POINT for state and federal largess. As we learned from FDR - by having the federal government directly send money to the cities a rather powerful political block can be crafted for the benefit of the national party and their interests.
It is the downside of this strategy that has not been debated enough. When the responsibility for economic growth resides at the periphery they are forced to field an economic order that can produce a high standard of living. The local powers are forced to remain prescient about the consequences of any flaws in their policies as they are the people who will bear the brunt of the damage there in.
When this responsibility is abstracted through multiple layers of government, in effect, the people who are aggrieved can VOTE THEMSELVES into prosperity because any of the local flaws in their assumptions can be masked as resources stream in that were generated elsewhere. Thus they shift from LOCAL PRODUCTION over to NATIONAL SYNERGY OF A VOTING BLOCK.
Now help me out here. We were all told that too much of the nation's economic activity has shifted from "core labor production" where hard goods were manufactured and thus our national product was sound over to a "middle man" economy where various Wall Street related financiers traded paper that represented value but which had no intrinsic value as would a manufactured car or ship or refrigerator. This was seen as the reason for our recent economic malaise. Why then aren't we prone to view the NATIONALIZATION OF ENTITLEMENTS in the very same way?
How is it that a person who pays $15,000 in aggregate taxes (federal, property, sales) receive $30,000 in aggregate benefit when you include:
As with the Wall Street trader - the American receiving these leveraged benefits are not going to say much until there is a collapse of the system.
The key power that is granted by the city charter is the power to do self-taxation. The money that used to flow to the county or state for the provision of services - now gets collected by the local municipal power. They are then responsible for delivering their own basic services - fire, police, sanitation, street repair, etc. The underlying assumption of the citizenry was "If we had control over our own money we could produce a better lifestyle and standard of living for our people".
This analysis is fundamental to understanding the forces behind the arguments of today.
To some people the cruel notion of limiting a political district's (city, community, or county) resulting fortunes to the economic activity that is contained within this district is tantamount to constructing a refugee camp and then turning the nation's back upon the inhabitants. They know that something will happen but it is not bound to be good.
Thus these forces seek to trample hundreds of years of government hierarchy and instead change the very function of our government. No longer will we have demands upon the local government to field a functional financial model for the benefit of their people. They instead seek to have a more nationalized flow of financial resources, having it drip downward. Thus the local entity now becomes the DISTRIBUTION POINT for state and federal largess. As we learned from FDR - by having the federal government directly send money to the cities a rather powerful political block can be crafted for the benefit of the national party and their interests.
It is the downside of this strategy that has not been debated enough. When the responsibility for economic growth resides at the periphery they are forced to field an economic order that can produce a high standard of living. The local powers are forced to remain prescient about the consequences of any flaws in their policies as they are the people who will bear the brunt of the damage there in.
When this responsibility is abstracted through multiple layers of government, in effect, the people who are aggrieved can VOTE THEMSELVES into prosperity because any of the local flaws in their assumptions can be masked as resources stream in that were generated elsewhere. Thus they shift from LOCAL PRODUCTION over to NATIONAL SYNERGY OF A VOTING BLOCK.
Now help me out here. We were all told that too much of the nation's economic activity has shifted from "core labor production" where hard goods were manufactured and thus our national product was sound over to a "middle man" economy where various Wall Street related financiers traded paper that represented value but which had no intrinsic value as would a manufactured car or ship or refrigerator. This was seen as the reason for our recent economic malaise. Why then aren't we prone to view the NATIONALIZATION OF ENTITLEMENTS in the very same way?
How is it that a person who pays $15,000 in aggregate taxes (federal, property, sales) receive $30,000 in aggregate benefit when you include:
- 2 public school children receiving $10,000 per student spending
- Public safety benefits - fire/police
- Health Care subsidy
- Other benefits
As with the Wall Street trader - the American receiving these leveraged benefits are not going to say much until there is a collapse of the system.
0 comments:
Post a Comment