Karen DeCoster
LRC Blog
September 8, 2008
They said that about Barack Obama on Morning Joe a few days ago. They even kept flashing that quote across the screen. How many people will stop to properly scrutinize that statement for its shameless absurdity?
First of all, what I picked up on is comparing a business to a city or a state. How can one ever make such a preposterous statement? A business has a very real profit and loss aspect to it, along with an owner’s interest in maintaining the profitability and/or longevity of the business. Business owners take on risk and invest time and capital with the expectation that they can create a profitable venture. Thus the customer becomes the vital focus from day one, as the entrepreneurial idea develops and takes shape. Accordingly, the owner puts together a business model that will successfully generate services and/or goods that are in demand in the marketplace. The customer is the one who has to be catered to, the one who has to be pleased in the end. Except for some unfortunate circumstances, a business owner (or his managers) have no desire to mistreat, plunder, or dupe their customers. For if there are unhappy customers, there ceases to be customers, and thus, by virtue of the profit-and-loss motive, the business will have to conclude its operations.
 |
|
|
|
|
However, there is no "customer" of a city or state government — there are only people who are singled out as prey (because you live the district, locality, county, state, or other) and are victimized and looted for their wealth so that the government entity can plow forward with the stolen pillage and provide jobs, wealth, preferential treatment, and power for the merry band of elected robbers (and their friends) who "run" the government entity. Government entities can continue to operate indefinitely under fraudulent or inefficient means because there is no profit-and-loss measurement to guide management decisions, assist in long-term planning, or determine the existence of profitable operations. While businesses have to attract investors, raise capital, and economize, governments can perpetually plunder through legislative fiat, and they can spend monies whether or not there is a balanced budget or a customer demand for the service or good that is ample enough to bring in profits.
Besides, what does it meant to "run a city" or "run a state" anyways? One is elected to "run" a government entity by a majority rule, due to the candidate’s money, power, persuasion, familiarity, following, or any combination thereof. And that is only after gaining privileged access to a political process which is dedicated to keeping out people who are not a part of the establishment elite. Running a government entity requires no qualifying characteristics such as those qualities that are required to be successful in the real world: ability, dedication, talent, intelligence, and results-oriented performance. It only requires securing access to the political process, via some special privilege or obeisance to the establishment’s agents, and bullying your way past the political opposition. These supposedly brilliant people who "run" government entities lie, steal, and promise the distribution of wealth in order to secure election victory so that they can control and dictate how the plundering will take place, who will be plundered, and who will receive the spoils. They also posses the power to make arbitrary decrees that are completely removed from any profit-and-loss or cost-benefit consequences.
But we are supposed to cheer the fact that politicians – or agents of coercion – are somehow made superior because they have, at some point in time, lorded it over some government entity where they eventually just walk out of office, and leave behind no measurable accountability for their performance, or lack thereof.
|
The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!