Dear Friends,
It seems to me, whenever two people meet to do business a third disinterested person to arbitrate any issues that come up, facilitates a fair outcome for both parties. This, is one of the legitimate roles of government, to be that third person. Sometimes two parties will disagree about an issue, often one party holds far more power to arbitrarily decide in their own interest. This is where government has a legitimate role to play. In other words, we can safely say that if person A is interacting with entity B, in a self interested way, then the interaction is facilitated by the introduction of arbiter C. But what if person A is you, and entity B, is the government bureaucracy? Who can, legitimately, take the role of arbiter C?
Why is it that when people interact in self interested ways it is helpful to have an arbiter? Because people cannot be objective when their self interest is involved. From the shop owner who demands his $20.00 on tab but the patron refuses to pay because the food is eaten, to the lady calling an insurance company, distraught and in agony over the loss of a loved one, and getting the run around… there is a need for an impartial arbiter to facilitate the fair interaction between individuals and entities… to address the imbalance of power in any interaction.
“But government is all of us, it must be fair” someone might claim. – Government is as much a self interested entity as is the most hideous conglomerate of big oil. Every person who works for government, is a human being, subject to all the failings that befall every one of us. They have the same failings but have no check on their acting them out. Call any government agency, with a real problem, examine their reaction from as much perspective as you can, and ask yourself, would you get fired if you acted this way to a customer? If you would, (and you work in the private sector), then we can safely say that the civil services worker is held to a lower standard of action, than a person in the private sector.
Why is that? Because there are no consequences. Look at impoverished countries, they all have one thing in common, a very corrupt civil service. I have a friend who lives in Guatemala… Brolio. I asked him about us partnering and buying land in Guatemala, we could apply Silvaculture practices I have learned here in the US, to forest land in Guatemala. He laughed and laughed. I asked him what was so funny, he replied, only certain people can own land in Guatemala… Of course only they can… How naïve and wide eyed of me…
But why are there no consequences for absolute corruption in the civil services? Because there is no third party arbiter. If a hairdresser in Afghanistan applies for a license to do business in Kandahar, she should not have to pay a bribe, not have to perform sexual services, she should be given the license if she meets the criteria. If any other criteria, outside what is required by government regulation is asked, then she should have an outside arbiter. Not only to punish and make an example of anyone engaged in corrupt actions, within the civil services, but to facilitate the smooth communication between Afghan citizens and the Afghan government.
A neighboring country cannot be the arbiter, because an outside government can never be trusted in such a task, due to human nature. Another means of finding a third party to arbitrate interactions between governments and their citizens. That means is a NUMA. A Fourth branch of government dedicated to overseeing the actions of government officials and arbitrating when citizens come into conflict with their government.
It would be far too dangerous to invest in a NUMA the ability to pass legislation and enforce it on the Elite, (like they do to us), so all other functions of government would be handled as they are now. Police would generally be under the Executive branch, legislative powers would be under the legislative Branch and Legal Jurisprudence would be under the aegis of a Judicial Branch. The NUMA would only be a police of government officials and arbiter of their interactions with the citizens.
The introduction of the rule of law and standards of measure greatly facilitated the market system. Just as the growth of the market system, can be said to flourish under conditions of smart regulation and fully considered standards, the introduction of an unbiased arbiter, to the interactions between the governors and the governed, would be greatly facilitated by an arbiter. This common sense solution to an age old problem is feared by the Elite, far more, than mobs in the streets.
Mobs can be gassed and shot… Handcuffs are more demanding.
