The Complexity Of Getting To Simple Solutions
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Figuring out where we want to go, as a society, and putting in place the framework that gets us to a desired result is a very delicate balance between providing the opportunity and organizing the components. Too much time spent on the collective “we” and you diminish the freedom and flexibility of the individual. An approach to allow for individuals to become what they believe their destiny runs into dealing with allowing an acceptance for end results that doesn’t always fit with the vision for those who consider themselves in charge.
How we construct the future is currently being shaped by a tension between differing viewpoints, making what’s already a challenge even more difficult. Those in charge (at least from a majority perspective in elected office) seem to believe they were put in charge to establish top down solutions to whatever they consider are the problems deserving their solutions. Whether in Washington, D.C. or from the Nevada Legislative chambers, these folks consider government as the central core for bringing about activities and programs for giving citizens tangible stuff that are deemed essential for everyone to have in equal proportions. In their minds, “Quality of Life” is something that government is capable of delivering – and actually is something which falls into the role of proper government.
Going beyond the parameters of working with neighbors to make and shape home communities to be all they can be, we’re now considering the State of Nevada as capable of such centrally-planned, Quality of Life. This is the driving purpose for the founding and implementation of the Vision work being carried out the first half of 2010 by the group of stakeholders assigned the responsibility of coming up with the designated benchmarks our state government should be striving to accomplish over the next five, ten and twenty year periods.
Now government making our lives better doesn’t come without a price. There’s the cash requirements of paying bureaucrats to bestow us with the essential things that will make our life better – both the things and the bureaucrats doing the bestowing come with price tags. Then there’s also the costs connected with reduced individual freedom and opportunity…that’s the price which I think gets woefully underestimated and is normally portrayed in a negative connotation of “greed”.
Government does not have the ability to give to one person without getting from someone else. Providing for the Quality of Life for the collective “we” can only be accomplished by acquiring resources from those who have worked and earned, more often than not so those who aren’t working or who haven’t earned can get something they would not otherwise have access to acquire.
Are we better off when this is the result? Equality achieved from taking from those who have to give to those who haven't?
There is a balance which needs to be discovered between providing for public good and individual good. I fully understand that individuals do have a role and responsibility to play in an obligation for fitting in with their fellow person’s Quality of Life. Having said that we have a place as our brother’s keeper -- I don’t believe that government can or should be the delivery agent in bringing about this objective.
In the past one person’s rights were to be maximized to the extent that those rights didn’t diminish another’s rights. Today’s model seems to be that individual rights have to be subjected to give everyone equal outcomes. Here’s where the rub is warming up and the chaffing is taking place.
Getting things worked out to establish the balance that’s needed will take a lot different venue than we seem to have available, especially when agendas are being rammed through back room processes and the ends justify whatever means required. That seems to be a recipe for disaster and I’m not sure we’re not cooking one up…
Figuring out where we want to go, as a society, and putting in place the framework that gets us to a desired result is a very delicate balance between providing the opportunity and organizing the components. Too much time spent on the collective “we” and you diminish the freedom and flexibility of the individual. An approach to allow for individuals to become what they believe their destiny runs into dealing with allowing an acceptance for end results that doesn’t always fit with the vision for those who consider themselves in charge.
How we construct the future is currently being shaped by a tension between differing viewpoints, making what’s already a challenge even more difficult. Those in charge (at least from a majority perspective in elected office) seem to believe they were put in charge to establish top down solutions to whatever they consider are the problems deserving their solutions. Whether in Washington, D.C. or from the Nevada Legislative chambers, these folks consider government as the central core for bringing about activities and programs for giving citizens tangible stuff that are deemed essential for everyone to have in equal proportions. In their minds, “Quality of Life” is something that government is capable of delivering – and actually is something which falls into the role of proper government.
Going beyond the parameters of working with neighbors to make and shape home communities to be all they can be, we’re now considering the State of Nevada as capable of such centrally-planned, Quality of Life. This is the driving purpose for the founding and implementation of the Vision work being carried out the first half of 2010 by the group of stakeholders assigned the responsibility of coming up with the designated benchmarks our state government should be striving to accomplish over the next five, ten and twenty year periods.
Now government making our lives better doesn’t come without a price. There’s the cash requirements of paying bureaucrats to bestow us with the essential things that will make our life better – both the things and the bureaucrats doing the bestowing come with price tags. Then there’s also the costs connected with reduced individual freedom and opportunity…that’s the price which I think gets woefully underestimated and is normally portrayed in a negative connotation of “greed”.
Government does not have the ability to give to one person without getting from someone else. Providing for the Quality of Life for the collective “we” can only be accomplished by acquiring resources from those who have worked and earned, more often than not so those who aren’t working or who haven’t earned can get something they would not otherwise have access to acquire.
Are we better off when this is the result? Equality achieved from taking from those who have to give to those who haven't?
There is a balance which needs to be discovered between providing for public good and individual good. I fully understand that individuals do have a role and responsibility to play in an obligation for fitting in with their fellow person’s Quality of Life. Having said that we have a place as our brother’s keeper -- I don’t believe that government can or should be the delivery agent in bringing about this objective.
In the past one person’s rights were to be maximized to the extent that those rights didn’t diminish another’s rights. Today’s model seems to be that individual rights have to be subjected to give everyone equal outcomes. Here’s where the rub is warming up and the chaffing is taking place.
Getting things worked out to establish the balance that’s needed will take a lot different venue than we seem to have available, especially when agendas are being rammed through back room processes and the ends justify whatever means required. That seems to be a recipe for disaster and I’m not sure we’re not cooking one up…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/29/2010 6:02 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Central Planning Taxes Nevada Quality of Life Government Spending Vision Stakeholder Group
Categories: Government
Tags: Central Planning Taxes Nevada Quality of Life Government Spending Vision Stakeholder Group
Comments