Thoughts on Systems to Prevent Abuse

I stumbled across this today, and I wanted to talk about this notion that "The government is bad and cannot be trusted with money".

Because I do not necessarily disagree with this, though I ascribe more to 'power corrupts' and that no system is perfect. i.e. They all have the potential for abuse.

This fits in rather well with the system of checks and balances our founders created, except that recent events have proven that those checks and balances aren't really enough.

That the legislative branch will not act as a check on the executive branch when legislators consider their party identity more important than their role as a legislator.

I've thought about this because, I'll admit, some of my preferred policies would make for a bigger government. (where, how, and why could take this on a tangent so I'll set that aside for now).

So here's the thing.

There is potential for abuse, but that's true for every single possibility. Private philanthropy runs the risk of some people not receiving aid because that private non-profit discriminates against their lifestyle. Like the Salvation Army denying aid to members of the LGBTQ community (though they sometimes try to say it's not so).

Public aid has the potential for abuse, because what you give you can withhold. Think about Trump threatening to give aid only to the states whose governors support him (or rather, do what he considers 'support'. I don't think it's really the same thing, but when you think obedience=support I suppose it looks that way.)

If you depend on the government, there's still the risk that some immoral and unethical opportunist will use that to reward obedience and punish dissent.

For profit companies run the same risks, too. Your aid may depend on working for that company, on not causing problems or agitating for more pay...

Etc, etcetera and so on and so forth.

While the only true answer is 'wisdom' (i.e. Having people with good judgment and discernment who know better than to abuse that power in such a way), wisdom is sadly in short supply. And is notoriously difficult to guarantee.

So I mostly think it's better to have something similar to those checks and balances. Even knowing that it may not be enough.

By which I mean - diversity.

A plethora of options.

If some controlling non-profit denies aid because someone is transsexual, then they should be able to get aid elsewhere.

Public, private, for-profit, non-profit... Let's enable all of them. And if any one is problematic it should be easy to use one of the others.

Its kind of similar for schools. Like sure, let's have charter schools and private schools and magnet schools... And also first-rate public schools.

Let's have top notch public transportation. And also the option for private.

Its a bit like nature.   That is, plants grow and spread their seeds far and wide (through wind, or animals, or whatever other technique they use). And some seeds fail, some don't find fertile ground or don't get enough sun or get eaten along the way, but enough do that plants can perpetuate themselves. And a healthy ecosystem has a diverse range of plants and animals that reach an equilibrium, even though any particular population may grow or decline depending on the weather or environment. (and I would need an expert to carry that analogy any further).

Government policy can and does shape that environment. Like propping up the railroad industry with federal land grants in the 1800s.

The issue isn't that "the government can't be trusted" and should be shut out of that sort of decision making as much as possible. The issue is that the government should deliberately shape that environment in ways that benefit the nation as a whole.

That is, it should help encourage that diversity of options. (it's part of what I like about federal grants to non profits, though there are issues with coordinating those diverse efforts to ensure everyone has access. Plus still the potential for abuse).

Its easier to say what's a bad environment than it is to say what's good, unfortunately. For example 'a bad environment makes it hard for people at the bottom to succeed through hard work and effort. Therefore systems that allow the rich and powerful to make more money while costs rise, and the resources to improve your situation grow increasingly out of reach... Are not sustainable and someone - perhaps the the government, if fools can't figure that out privately - should prevent it from happening.'

Anyways, that belief is overly simplified and currently being used to justify some pretty terrible choices.