The following article highlights the problem with governance in the Philippines. Read this
article, and then my commentary.
The problem with the current system is:
1. The centralised nature of financial disbursements
2. The lack of accountability for how those funds are disbursed
3. The lack of discretion that taxpayers have to contribute. i.e. Taxation is coercive; not voluntary.
4. The lack of legal action for anyone else to fill the 'needs' failed by government
5. The cynicism of taxpayers who, lacking discretion with their taxation, are loathsome to contribute more.
The problem is our system of government which results in:
1. Sanctioning of powerful interests whose legitimacy rests on their capacity to win an election. They do that by making promises which are contingent upon extortion of financial resources from taxpayers. i.e. This is essentially mob rule, and its no kinder than any tyranny. In fact, its worse because its sanctioned as 'your choice' because you 'chose' one tyrant over another, who are competing on the practicality of extortion. Where can that system take you, but towards greater community resignation, and greater political leader desperation. It will ultimately lead to a more oppressive state, as you back is broken. The paradox is that representative democracy was supposed to preserve stability; but in fact its setting society up for the perfect storm, and your politicians will not take responsibility for it.
2. Repudiation of reason as the standard of value. Under democracy it is mob rule which decides what gets done. The implication is that arbitrary rules dictate what people do, and detached from any context, it is possible for anyone to circumvent the law by finding a 'loophole' in it. Whether the loophole is identified by government, to impose a new law/tax upon you, or corporates trying to reduce their tax burden, the implication is that government becomes, not a framework for protecting you, but a framework for systematically imposing arbitrary law upon you. Yes, it becomes a framework for tyranny. Death by a 1000 statutes. Statutory law comes to displace a far more coherent and logical framework of 'principled' common law, which actually far better carries a context, and is far less controversial. That's not to say that it is perfect. It is not fully open to rational debates; particularly since it has been subjugated to the 'public interest' test of statute law. i.e. Common law today has to be popular.
What is the solution? It is clear to me that the solution is:
1. Meritocracy - This means different things to different people. Some consider the current system a 'merit-based' system because its the successful, wealthy people who dictate how the system functions because they finance powerful interests or parties, which succeed in getting them elected. This is extortion or mob rule to me. i.e. This is coercive or 'brutality' as the standard of value, i.e. The threat of physical force. I am instead suggesting rational debate, open to the poor (or their representatives) and rich alike. People argue 'whose reason'? The answer is yours; but there is no conflict between rational people, even if their context is different, they share the same 'reality' functioning under the same universal rules of nature. People think that people are not open to reason. This is no true; the problem is that they have the discretion not to be reasonable. Even if they are 'reasonable', they have the discretion to walk away when they are 'sure', rather than confront opponents or their contradictions. You never end a debate. So long as you have opponents, you keep debating. The fact that people are never able to close a debate means that fundamental issues are never resolved. i.e. We are still debating very simple or fundamental questions after hundreds of years of democracy. That is because we had 'aristocratic democracy which locked our competitors; and now we have extortion-based (3 party democracy - capitalists, labour, greenies mainly) imposing their agendas; so we never get to the facts.
2. Decentralisation of power - Critics will argue that it would take too long to reach agreement on all issues if everyone needed to be convinced. The opposite is actually true. No decisions are really made under representative democracy, which means only 'material' or self-evident values are advanced, i.e. Its easy to get a govt to spend money; just not to do anything useful with that money. The alternative is to avoid the slow pace of decision-making by decentralising it. Not only does this allow people to contribute, which empowers and educates them, it allows them to participate in their area of knowledge or strength, and feel comforted that 'reason is never off the table'. i.e. The system is always open to them to challenge...or learn. They are not alienated by the system. There is no conflict between rational men when reason is the standard. Its a source of convince and respect for your fellow men; whether you respect their 'belated' better argument, or because they respect yours. This is a source of validation missing from representative democracy. In Western Democracy, you walk away from the table cynical, so you stop participating. You resign yourself to the fact that you have no right to exist; that your life is as a slave.
If you want to make a difference to change the relationship between you and society. If you want a world where due regard is shown for the human mind. Then you need a different political paradigm. Representative democracy is incompatible with rationality. Only when we sponsor some small fragment of rational discourse will society come to understand what it truly means to be human. Few people are scarcely able to live by that paradigm in this era of slavery; which is posited as an era of 'rights' and 'reason'; but that is a moral relativist illusion. We are a long way from sanctioning or validating intellectual discourse. We are instead beholden to 2minute TV sound-bits and the arbitrary decisions of leaders; and the injustice of our justice system. The animal kingdom displays greater integrity than mankind. Start questioning why this is the case. Question the values upon which you were raised. You cannot separate political rights from economic rights. If you have no money because you are arbitrarily taxed, or threatened by arbitrary and punitive financial sanction by arbitrary rules, then you have no political rights. What good is 'due process' if you have no right to a material existence? This is the loophole which your government counts upon for its 'middleman' existence.
Already a great many expatriates live in the Philippines; not because its a better form of government, but because its smaller and more feeble. If you want to make a difference to our framework of political discourse - sign our petition!
Posts
