Big government certainly has what many think are advantages, such as providing universal healthcare, supporting the impoverished, funding scientific research, and regulating financial issues. These initiatives undoubtedly have short-term benefits for elections, but do they over-reach the original mandate of simply facilitating public interactions?
It is crucial to recognize that the main duty of the government is to ensure the security and safety of its citizens, among other responsibilities. However, when companies or their management make poor decisions, it is not the government's obligation to come to their rescue when they face difficulties. The purpose of businesses is to offer products or services that fulfill the needs and desires of consumers. The way in which these offerings are provided directly impacts their prosperity or downfall. While certain industries, such as the automotive and financial sectors, argue for bailouts, it is important to consider their perspective to some degree.
It is common to witness a push for greater government oversight year after year in many countries, especially the ones labelled "developed" such as Canada, Europe and United States. While this is a large topic, statists argue that govern-ment oversight is necessary but many especially those labelled "anarcho capitalists" disagree because the public sector has a tendency to expand and when it does, it's rarely carried out with utmost integrity or efficiency because of the lack of "checks and balances" the competitive private sector market maintains. The key lies in striking a balance where oversight does not become excessive, hindering healthy competition and negatively impacting consumers, but how is this done when those in positions of public sector power set the rules? The reality is it's never worked and will never work.
Take what most people think is "universal healthcare," for example. I used to think that the term "health care" meant they were taking care of health but the fact is that most of that term should be termed "sick care" because that's what the western model of biology/medicine is based on: reductionist science. This branch of science mainly only treats your symptoms when you become sick but is not fundamentally oriented toward systems biology's ability to prevent and reverse conditions mainly using "natural therapies" due its recognition of the fact that the former branch of science views the human body as separate parts and this leads to only mainly symptom management.
Did You Know? We Have Free Email News & Tips
Sign up to the above email list to receive more free updates.
Outsourced & offshored personal responsibility to technocrats
When people are told that they get free or low cost healthcare, they wrongly think they save money on their health and they have more to spend on other goods and services, giving a boost to the economy. The adoption and promotion of "sick care" at least in places like Canada essentially removes the concept of personal health responsibility. This is even more pronounced when the medical bureaucracy discourages people taking care of their own health even at the individual practitioner level's common dismissal of "alternative medicine" which is a very broad field. Not only do we essentially outsource our manufactured goods and services (that used to provide working industries for us) to international providers such as China, we outsource our health choices to diefied individuals working in a virtualy assembly line industry called "health care" that should more appropriately be termed "sick care."
Authoritarian "sick care" system & culture in Canada
This is one of the first concepts that leads many from birth to grave to think that "govern-ment cares for them" because some politicians in the near past legislated and took away the abiliyt of the individual to make their own health decisions and spending. This has been a fact of the faux-fabric of Canadian cultural, political landscape for about 60 years and has provided virtually all Canadians a false sense of pride developed by politicians.
"Canada had existed as a distinct country for 101 years before the introduction of a form of socialized medicine in 1968. Millions upon millions of Canadians were born, flourished, received health care and died without giving a thought to the “core value” of a state monopoly on the provision of essential health care. They defined their country sometimes as a rugged northern land, sometimes as a British kingdom, sometimes as a bastion of personal freedom, sometimes as an improvement on the US. Canadian lumberjacks, farmers and their wives, hockey players, and the men who seized Vimy Ridge in 1917 had no interest in the idea of a nanny state, and for the most part believed deeply in notions of personal responsibility and freedom." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913103/
Politicians rarely inform the electorate how the various public sector institutions they create over decades result the conditions for high prices on everything as is happening now, but instead they create the problem with original well-meaning intentions (ostensibly to be elected) but the eventual result is out of control bureaucracy creation. The case is certainly no different for the concept of medical care but many somehow compartmentalize and separate medical care from the other services and products they purchase on a daily basis. The reality is medical care in the past was very affordable and the food supply was much less manipulated as it is now which contributes sigificantly in the deterioration of health of the populace.
Please donate to the "Pay It Forward" Campaign
This donation will help others obtain individualized help who can't afford it.
To compare the evidence-based knowledge of concepts such as systems science which has been increasing emerging over the past 30 years to the entrenched 150 years old reductionist medical system (many people mistakenly call "health care") treating the human body as separate parts to treat only symptoms, then we become confused and call for politicians to further nationalize the medical system as what happened in Canada in 1983. Also at that time the govern-ment outlawed all legitimate complementary medicine modalities in an effort to maintain the monopoly of funds and the entrenchment of Canada as some kind of "socialist haven" especially for an unsustainable immigration industry supplying corporations with the lowest labor costs possible.
The original public medicare system introduced by the Pearson government in 1968 fared so badly in competition with the private sector that it could only be saved by giving it legal monopoly powers under the Canada Health Act of 1983. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/ PMC1913103/
When I was young, conditioned with state propaganda including that of my parents who were employed by the state, along with my own health uncertainty among many others being young, I truly started to believe a group of un-elected polticians knew best for myself and the phrase "the common good." Now that I am older, having studied many subjects especially economics along with living in a handful of other countries, I now know this was mostly a lie.
Bureaucratic "red tape" and other unnecessary barriers disenfranchise self responsibility and self employment
Many countries including Canada maintain a very rigid, expensive bureaucratic process for obtaining employment, practicing virtually any trade along with something simple like obtaining a place to live. The same heavy bureaucratic processes exist for employers in offering employment even for inexperienced people and along with high business costs leads to extreme difficulties even obtaining employment or even attending any kind of formal education. Is it any wonder most small businesses close within the first 5 years of operation and is it any wonder so many medical practitioners quit many fields of "sick care" within the first 10 years of obtaining paid work positions?
Is human nature really only explainable with psychology? Certainly not!
Human nature to many is complex and leaves us perplexed without realizing our behavior is mostly determined by our cellular health which for most of humanity is in a very poor state. On one hand, humans possess an extraordinary capacity to collaborate harmoniously with unfamiliar individuals on a grand scale. However, under certain conditions, humans can also exhibit the most savage and merciless behavior imaginable.
This paradox becomes particularly evident when we attempt to comprehend why certain individuals harbor affection and endorse dictators, fascism, and other forms of authoritarianism. From an academic standpoint, two primary theories emerge to explain this phenomenon: one revolves around the concept of safety, while the other delves into the realm of biology. Let us delve into each theory separately.
A recent study conducted in the United States has revealed a compelling correlation between economic hardship and the inclination of individuals to support leaders with authoritarian qualities. This finding aligns with a comprehensive three-decade study that examined the values and opinions of people worldwide. The research demonstrates that when faced with economic uncertainty, groups not only tend to favor authoritative leaders, but they also become more willing to overlook democratic norms and excuse unethical behavior.
What makes these studies particularly intriguing is that this correlation remains consistent across political ideologies. Whether individuals identify as liberal or conservative, if they experience economic hardship, they are equally likely to increase their support for leaders with authoritarian tendencies. Researchers posit that economic and social instability evoke a sense of powerlessness, compelling people to seek solace and strength in strongman figures. Authoritarian leaders possess a knack for projecting an image of fighting on behalf of the people, thereby instilling a sense of security thereby removing personal responsibility from the confused, mis-informed and dis-enfranchised masses.
1/3 of world democratic world supports authoritarianism
Delving deeper into human nature and biology, another school of thought sheds light on a more intricate scenario. A comprehensive global survey conducted at the close of 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of respondents across 29 democratic nations exhibited some level of support for authoritarianism. However, this support for authoritarianism remained dormant until a perceived or actual threat triggered it. Interestingly, economic uncertainty may not necessarily be the catalyst for fostering authoritarian tendencies; rather, it may simply awaken the pre-existing authoritarian-friendly mindset within this one-third of the population.
This authoritarian mindset is characterized by an unwavering belief in absolute obedience to authority. When questioned about the qualities that mainly only children should possess, individuals adhering to this mindset, such as many subgroups and sub-cultures and religions, tend to prioritize obedience, good manners, and well-behaved conduct over attributes like independence, curiosity, and critical thinking.
It is crucial to recognize that a significant portion of the population may have an inherent inclination towards authoritarian leadership, especially during times of economic and social uncertainty.
To combat this, we must focus on implementing policies that promote stability in these areas -- especially in the realm of "health care" which most associate with being sick and attending a Medical Doctor's office. By creating a more secure environment with the promotion of personal responsibility we can prevent the activation of authoritarian tendencies in a minority of individuals. Additionally, it is essential to outnumber those who support authoritarianism.
Many don't realize the root word of govern-ment has 2 origins: govern in Latin language means to control and ment (or mentis in Latin language) means the mind. In essense the very concept of govern-ment for thousands of years has literally been to control the minds of the masses and often coercing using mass conditioning into having individual liberty acquiesced to centralized power usually held by people calling themselves "law makers."
Attempting to change their minds simply with psychological means is often futile, so the best approach is to consistently outvote them and keep their influence in check at least in the short term. As the knowledge and promotion of personal responsibility primarily with the promotion of maintaining cellular nutritional health evolves via mediums such as the internet and websites like this, we can be confident the chances of increasing public sector authoritarianism will continue to decrease.
References:
