Servants or Masters

Have you ever wondered how come we have Masters and Servants?

I think there are two ways to look at this. One can be a Servant by choice. And, one can be a Servant because they have no choice. Or, because they don't choose not to be a Servant; in other words they allow themselves to become a Servant as a result of inaction or not making a choice.

For me, I believe that when someone is elected into a position of authority over other people, they are choosing to act as a Servant to the people who elected them. In a perfect world, those who are elected into positions of authority would serve with humility. And, the elected individuals would keep in mind the trust that was bestowed on them by the people who elected them. That's in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect; simply because the people in this world are far from perfect. I'm not saying that everyone is evil or even bad. I think most people are good at heart, and I think most people want to do the right thing. But, we are still human. And, therefore, we still suffer from things like pride, jealousy and even greed. We all want what our neighbor has. In fact, many times we want to have something better than our neighbor. We are constantly comparing ourselves to our neighbor; and, even competing with them. It's the pride, greed and jealousy (among other things) that make this world far from perfect.

In a perfect world, a government of the people should in fact be Servants of the people. But, is this the case today? Do the people elected into public service today actually see themselves as Servants? Or, do they see themselves as Masters? Who is the Servant today, and who is the Master?

Can you imagine a Servant in the 14th century telling their king that they were going to take a bigger salary than the king? Can you imagine a worker in the 19th century telling their boss that they knew better how to spend their boss' money more efficiently? Think about this. Isn't this precisely what our elected officials are doing today? Of course, no one wants anarchy. And, of course, someone needs to work on behalf of the people - to make laws for the people. But, the examples I have given are not examples of elected officials making laws on behalf of the people they are supposed to be serving. These are examples of our elected officials using their positions for their own gain; establishing themselves as superior to the people who elected them.

So, what is the real motivation for someone to be elected into government today? Is it because they truly want to serve the people that elected them? Or, is it because they want a position of power and authority. As a person who wants to believe that all people are good at heart, I want to believe the former. However, this is not the behavior I am observing from my elected officials. I see my elected officials taking exorbitant salaries for themselves, while listening to political lobbyists and their own political party, instead of the people that elected them. It looks to me like my elected officials see themselves as my Master, and, that their true motivation for being elected is to gain access to power and authority.

This situation begs the question: can a government of the people, by the people and for the people ever really work, if the people being elected cannot be trusted to work on behalf of the people who elected them? I believe the founders of the United States of America found the answer: limited authority, and checks and balances.

If we make the hypothesis that our government can become corrupt (in a manner of speaking) for the reasons I have already outlined, then what should we do? We still need some form of government in order to maintain society; even more so as the population increases. But, what if we limited the authority each "form" of government has over it's citizens? What if we build checks and balances into our system of government?

In my world, we call this separation of concerns. Basically, this means governmental authority is divided up. For those "forms" of government that have influence over large portions of the population, less authority should be granted. The rationale is simple: corruption in a government with wide spread authority will have more devastating effects. Thus, a corollary can be formed: that as a government's population base grows, it's authority should decrease. This is to minimize the risk and effects of a government that does not work on behalf of it's citizens; rather, it works on behalf of political parties and groups of elitists.

I believe this is what the founders of the united States of America were trying to do: put a system of government in place that would protect it's citizens from corruption that will most certainly occur at some point. After all, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also believe that the bill of rights was put in place as a reminder that the government should serve the people, and not the other way around.

My colleagues like to tease me about using the term "slippery slope". Well, here it is. As we the people cede more and more authority to a centralized government, we are taking more and more risk that a centralized government will ultimately become our Masters. Of course, this will all be rationalized and done over a very long time (boiling the frog). But, I believe it will happen, because it has happened before. Look at what has happened to every great society in the world's history? Do any of them still exist today?

This brings up an interesting side bar. What about the claims of progressives? Can a distributed government make social progress? Some will argue that if not for Lincoln and the civil war, we would still have states that allow slavery (of course Lincoln was not a progressive - he was doing what he believed was right for humanity). This rationale is used to push the agenda of the greater good. While I agree that in this case the centralized government needed the authority to ban slavery, I do not believe this should become a precedent for large, centralized government. Clearly, no system of government is going to be perfect. We the people need to remain diligent in the monitoring and control of our government. I think this is the real lesson. But, I digress

Our founders put in place a system of government whereby smaller government units (city, county, state) could have corresponding amounts of authority over citizens of the United States. It makes perfect sense to me: give the government with the smallest population the most authority. This way, if the people are subjected to a corrupt government, they can always move away from the corruption. And, the government will starve without citizens. This seems to me to be the true strength of a democratic system. The problem with this form of distributed form of government, is that it makes it more difficult for a small group of Masters (or elitists) to gain control over an entire population. But, isn't that the point? Again, I am not saying that everyone who is elected is bad. I am simply pointing out the risks of large, centralized governments; whether elected via democratic process or not.

So, why did I do this blog? What am I so worried about? Well, let me tell you. I've been just as frustrated (even disgusted) with my political leaders as the next guy. But, it was not until this last presidential election that I realized how close we (the citizens of America) have come to becoming Servants of our government. I mean, we were so desperate for "change", that we elected the first person who promised us "change". And, here is the really scary part: we did not bother to question what was meant by "change". Instead, we allowed the media to convince us that the "change" we wanted would be accomplished, if we elected the one promising the "change". It was at this point that I realized we the people had lost control of our government. It was at this point that I realized the elitists were able to manipulate the voters into electing who ever they wanted. And, to what end? Isn't it obvious: power and control. I fear that the worst fears of our founders are at hand. I fear that we are allowing a large, centralized government to become our Master.

Here is the bottom line: unless we want to become Servants to our government, we need to take steps to get back to what the founders intended. We need to ensure that all forms of government are structured in order to minimize and protect against corruption. And, we need to ensure that all forms of government understand and adhere to their role as Servants of the people who elected them. Remember, if we don't choose not to be a Servant, it's the same as choosing to be a Servant.

Sent from my iPad