Members of congress could write and pass orders of magnitude fewer laws and individuals and society would be served far better than it is now. The general public doesn't judge a congressperson by how many laws they write. Rather, they judge by the quality of laws they write. As it is now, 99+ percent of people don't know what new laws are passed anyways. Members of congress would get paid the same salary if they write a tiny fraction of laws. Say, for example, thirty new laws a year instead of the current three thousand new laws congress creates each year.
Since it's not their set salaries that influences their decision to write so many laws, what does? Are they getting kick backs from lobbyists? Consider this, lobbyists and special interest groups give hard-money donations that goes into just that politicians campaign-reelection fund, and/or they give soft-money donations that goes into the much larger, political party's campaign fund.
That's the main reason State and federal politicians create so many laws. They are doing special favors for the lobbyists and special interest groups that give them money. Often those new laws give the donor an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace. Other times the laws expand a market for the donor's business to move into. The EPA and environmental laws and regulations written by congresspersons and implemented by bureaucrats have virtual created an entire industry.
Back in the 1970s congresspersons and their respective political parties received huge donations based on the faulty premise that global cooling was a major threat to life as we know it on planet Earth. Since that time they've been receiving huge donations based on the faulty premise that global warming was a major threat to life as we know it on planet Earth. However, man's minimal impact on Earth's environment, yes, minimal impact, is off-set by advances in technology that increasingly lessens the impact. For example, the use of natural gas used to heat homes has a tiny fraction of the impact on the environment than if wood was still used to heat the majority of homes.
The primary reason congresspersons create so many new laws each year is to get big money from donors for their re-election campaigns.
Why do members of congress want to be re-elected? To keep getting nice, fat paychecks and the many perks that come with the job. The biggest perk being prestige. Prestige based on the premise that they are compassionate and sensitive to the little guys' needs. Thus they supposedly use government to help the little guy. But it's usurped prestige that they gain and are un-entitled to receive.
Yet the little guy isn't aware of 99+ percent of the laws that are created. Even if 1% of each years' new laws actually benefit the little guy -- which is questionable -- what about the other 99% of laws? Who do they benefit? The big money donors -- lobbyists, special interest groups and the companies they lobby for.
Let's change focus onto how business competition benefits the little guy, and all people. Businesses compete to serve customer wants and needs. The businesses that create the most satisfaction for the most customers grow stronger and thus increase their ability to serve the customer market ever better. Seldom will a person find a business that harms their customers, and even then the business is quick to make right whatever it is they did wrong. For if they don't correct their error/problem they'll very quickly be out competed by a business that caters to the customers' need to be satisfied. The more and better a business serves the customers' needs the more jobs the business can create to serve an expanding customer base.
For a business, there is every reason to satisfy customers and no reason to abuse them. Yet, according to politicians, bureaucrats, media elite and academia elite, the little guy needs 3,000 new laws each year and government to look out for the little guy by keeping businesses in check so they don't harm the little guy.
It is job creating businesses that cater to satisfying customer needs that have earned, deserve and are entitled to prestige -- not politicians, bureaucrats, media or academia elite. Yet we seldom hear business owners or CEO's crowing about how compassionate and sensitive they are to the little guys needs. No. They have a businesses to run and besides, their customers know via experience that the business is looking out for them. Parasitical elite usurping unearned livelihoods are often seen and heard crowing about their zest and compassion to help the little guy.
Juxtaposition businesses and parasitical elites. Watch what they do, not what they say.
What about Enron? 1) Enron donated large amounts of money to both major political parties' soft-money campaign funds and donations to specific politicians -hard-money campaign funds -- can you say government collusion? 2) In a free market free of government collusion, transparency in accounting practices necessary to compete would have precluded Anderson and Anderson form deceptive accounting practices.
By usurping power and prestige that is rightfully earned by the businesses, the little guy is harmed by government collusion in the market place.
And don't even get me started on the tremendous benefits gained by a don't-pay-if-you-don't-want sales tax replacing the must-pay-by-threat-of-force graduated income tax that would quickly boom the economy. I'll save that discussion for another time.
When a person does wrong to another person and then goes on to understand why what they did was wrong and thus openly acknowledge they were wrong, it is expected in the future that they will be as honest about future errors they make. For they have demonstrated the desire and ability to acknowledge and right their wrongs.
With politicians they almost never openly admit they were wrong, for they don't want to be held by the same future standard that all other people, for the most part, abide. For politicians it has little to do with being perceived as always being right. Instead, it is about avoiding having to show, via their actions, that they have demonstrated the desire and ability to acknowledge and right their wrongs. As often as they do make errors and wrong actions -- either out of ignorance or incompetence -- they desperately want to avoid being held to a standard of honesty and integrity in the future.
Simply put, once a person sincerely demonstrates the ability to be straight-forth, honest and respectful of integrity they have set a standard that others can expect from them in the future. Having done that, consider what transpires when the person later on creates a wrong but chooses not to hold true to his or her previously set standard of honesty and integrity. Onlookers see the person is being outright deceptive or dishonest.
In other words, once a person sets an honest standard for themselves they have to live up to it or the contradiction sticks out like a sore thumb. If and when that happens the person corrects that error. The fact is, most politicians, bureaucrats, media elite and academia elite shut down that very important aspect of character development. They avoid it all together. Else wise they wouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror. Instead, to cover for their neglect they rely on ethical standards set by a governing body. But the standards set by a governing body, especially when it's bureaucrats setting ethical standards, they too have shut down that important aspect of their character development. Thus the ethical standards the governing body sets is all but void of what you and I and virtually every other person lives by -- the nature of conscious man.
That said, the government officials that are now in office, as well as their predecessors, are among the worst people to have high-ranking-government jobs. Not to mention that most of those jobs wouldn't have existed in the first place if people with a commitment to honesty and integrity ran the government -- people who do not neglect their character development.
Is it any wonder that so much weight is put on the character of a candidates seeking to win elections. The mainstream media is not unlike the politicians in that media elites have also chosen to neglect the same important aspect of character development as they become complicit in covering for their soul-mates in government. Ditto for the academia elite.
Even when politicians and bureaucrats admit they were wrong, in all but the rarest of instances it isn't until so much exposure of their wrong has been leaked out that they eventually admit they were wrong. That admittance of doing wrong has nothing to do with character development. Character development is voluntary and needs no prodding. Least wise not for adults. Prodding adolescents is a different issue and necessary at times. Come to think of it, most politicians and bureaucrats would fail an adolescent character test.
Around the world, governments are run by humanoids. Humanoids that have chosen to neglect their character development. They wield tremendous government power that has been usurped via failed characters -- deceiving the people/tax-payers they are supposed to be protecting. Each humanoid-politician and bureaucrat is several magnitudes more harmful than nearly any violent criminal of the day. They are not like you and I and every other person who lives naturally according to the nature of conscience man.