17 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Commerce is the life blood of government; without commerce, there would be no cause for a tax policy. Without commerce, government could not be funded. Therefore one would think, considering that commerce by way of their elected representatives and by the willful enjoinment of their fellow citizens (who provide the workings of commerce), the very persons who created the reasoning for and establishment of government (ostensibly, to serve the interest of the people) that this interdependent relationship (commerce & government) would be tolerantly harmonious.

Nevertheless, the relationship between government and commerce is converse to the rational of deductive thinking; indeed, in the most positive interpretive of the relationship, it is contentious. This tone of contentiousness is an accurate descriptive of a relationship that spans the scope of all manner as well as most matters of material interest. The interest of commerce is rancorously at odds with the potentates that administer the workings of government. The reason for the contentiousness is always about and connected to the amount of cash, via fees & taxation, that commerce is required by government to contribute. The government always wants more and commerce always wants less.

To witness these acrimonious actions amongst the multiple pieces and parts of government and their ongoing conflict with commerce is mind boggling. Imagine the reality; both of these entities are essential rudiments for governmental accomplishment and a profitable commerce. However if one rudiment is in constant disagreement the result is a constancy of fiscal uncertainty. The mere fact that this continuum of internal dysfunction is allowed to prevail knowing the result is fiscal uncertainty; is a baffling phenomenon-a clear contradiction of sagacity; an affront to reasonableness.

These entities, in the interest of orderliness, are obliged to rely on each other’s contribution to the whole. But instead of setting the balance of and for a respectful understanding of their respective merits while openly acknowledging their dependence on interdependence, the counter-parties step back from productive debate so that they have enough room to joust. Acting as if armed knights, each wanting to inflict a mortal blow upon the other; they each feign the moral high ground while covertly practicing statutorily compliant deceitfulness.

Commercial interests have committed civil and criminal acts. Commerce requires governess and regulation. Today somewhere within the providence of US jurisdiction some commercial entity is committing an illegal act. Clearly, government was created and is appointed by the people to secure such governess. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of commerce’s history of unlawfulness and its willingness to violate the law of the land; government is often enough, either by simply not enforcing existing laws or for political posturing government has chosen to turn a blind eye to unfolding unlawful events. Possibly government, through the ideological prospective of a political group, the personal agenda of a powerful elected representative, a particular committee appointed to specifically promote a certain organization such as unions, a commercial interest striving to enable an advantage, possibly, herein lies the protagonist-perpetrator of extralegal actions. Whichever the case or situation there is a factoids of voluminous historical evidentiary to support the contention that government and commerce have explicitly and implicitly, often with malice of forethought acted in an unlawful manner.

Connecting commerce with and to government is laws buttressed by many, many, regulations managed by a modest number of regulators. Pressed in-between, amongst, and part of this contextual formation is attorneys, hundreds if not thousands; these attorneys are not void of forethought they have political preconceptions along with a persistent faithfulness to the hand that feeds them. This sector is identified as the administration’s bureaucracy. Commerce counters this sector with lobbyists who use their skill at persuasion to positively influence lawmakers and regulators. In addition, there are the hundreds of non elected staff, appointed, and employees of the elected all exhibiting fierce loyalty to the elected. The contesting for the political will to act is a circus that could easily match the bloodiest heavyweight bout.

At the end of it all; after available cash has been spent and all the sacrificial blood expended commerce will trounce, supersede, and triumph over, the will of government coercive intervention. Regardless, it is just a matter of time before we need to learn the lesson again. Progressivism, socialism, communism, all the isms that exist is in reality the multi-headed dragon; one must continue to cut off the head-the dragon will not die. However the lead dragon can lose the next election and be deposed.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: