Power, Control, and Accountability

Power and control are inherent aspects of human nature, with some wanting to lead, and others wanting to be led. However, those in a position of power must be held accountable at the same time.

I have noted many times that our foundation is not in any way political, and it remains a valid truth. In fact, given its operational function and organizational structure, the efforts of the foundation will ideally provide a direct and tangible benefit to the individual, the family unit, the local community, and even the State as a legally recognized and duly elected domestic entity.

With that being said, it is also important to note that in many ways, the foundation will wield many of the same powers and controls through those in a position of authority, and it is equally important to understand the nature of governance if there are to be viable, long-term solutions for attaining a level of systemically sustainable human growth and development.

At the same time, given the potential power and the subsequent potential for abuses, it is necessary to have an intimate understanding of history and the resultant and often egregious abuses of power from those in a similar position of authority and control. If the foundation is in fact going to empower the people and to ensure their liberty, it is imperative to understand how those principles were lost in the first place.

There seem to be many “sustainability experts” who believe that dominance over the people, forcing them to act or react in certain ways, and controlling the individual and their behavior is the best, if not the only path forward. Suffice it to say we heartily disagree and would likely begin studying the rebellious philosophy of Albert Camus more diligently were such an authoritarian approach introduced.

The first question that must be asked, and I will focus on the American government here solely because that is the one I am most intimately familiar with, and a direct question to you, the viewers. Do you trust the federal government?

According to numbers from Pew Research, think what you will of them, since 2007, the number of people saying they can trust the government always or most of the time has not surpassed 30%. Today, 25% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say they trust the federal government just about always or most of the time, compared with 8% of Republicans and Republican leaning centrists.

Democrats report slightly less trust in the federal government today than a year ago at the time of this writing while the views of Republicans and independents have been relatively unchanged over this period. If you are one of those individuals willing to put your entire faith and trust in governing agencies and their agents, this article is probably not overly relevant to you as an individual.

If humanity were a perfect species, we would not need government to begin with. Unfortunately, when left unchecked, people tend to go off the rails a bit, at least in terms of humanity as a whole.

Thus, the historical solution has been to allow a select few people to place themselves, wholly unchecked, in positions of power as our lords and dear leaders, determining even the minuscule details of our individual lives, and what “privileges” we are allowed to enjoy based on edicts they have created, far too frequently for personal gain or private wealth in the case of politicians and politicians turned lobbyists.

Yeah. When people are left unchecked, they become crazy, so we put people who are unchecked in control of the system, often under the guise of public service, though any semblance of serving the public has long been kicked out the proverbial window, at least where I grew up.

Among far too many public officials, long gone are any pretenses of serving the people, securing the liberties of the people, or even working for and on behalf of the people. There are multiple millionaires “serving” the people, becoming multi-millionaires on relatively minor salaries.

Ben Franklin once noted: “In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. ”

And even Abraham Lincoln, despite having institutionalized and formalized the centralized form of government in the previously independent but united States of America once noted: “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Tangentially related, we have Baron de Montesquieu who noted among his many famous quotes that “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” He further noted “That anyone who possesses power has a tendency to abuse it is an eternal truth. They tend to go as far as the barriers will allow.” While I disagree with much of what he has written, he does make salient points as well, and they deserve to be noted and taken into consideration at the same time.

Perhaps most notable of all, or at least among the most memorable, is a quote from Lysander Spooner, wherein he noted: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

This should inevitably lead to the question of how the people can be put in a position of power to hold the organizational structures that hold such sway over them, in check and to ensure it remains wholly accountable to the people which it is rightfully serving and protecting.

The answer, at least in the case of our foundation, seems to be the introduction of decentralized systems, unified and coordinated, but not controlled from a centralized seat or location. The powers granted to that centralized body need to be few and very well defined, and there needs to be a definitive separation of power.

All that should sound at least relatively familiar to anyone who pays even a passing interest in politics, but that also reverts us right back to the position of listening to Lysander Spooner.

This is approached in the case of the foundation through a tripartite body that will trilaterally decide the direction of operations, form, and function. At the top is the foundation, and on the second layer is the incorporation and then the Community Support Services Team.

What? An incorporation as part of the ruling elite? Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? Except it does not work like that. We saw the same things you do.

As has been noted before, the foundation will own the incorporated body. Thus, the net commercial proceeds will go directly to the foundation, where the law requires that at least seventy percent of those proceeds be used for humanitarian benefits.

Given the registration and operational requirements of the foundation, that will include any and all programs that promote the general welfare, though both ICNL standards and Domestic Law prohibit the distribution of cash benefits, even directly to the general population.

The Incorporated body will inevitably desire to grow, and will need to continue to grow and expand to successfully fund all operations, and to ensure the economically sustainable portions of systemically sustainable human growth and development, at least within the constraints of the current socioeconomic and sociopolitical systems.

However, any and all expansion programs will by design, require the approval of the foundation, with the capacity to approve or over-ride those decisions based on the will of the people as represented by the locally elected community support services team members from the areas wherein the expansion will take place.

The potential for abuse of course then moves to those support team members, who may easily be bribed or otherwise swayed to forego the general welfare of the people being represented. It is here that the Ombudsman program will, by necessity, mandate community service from the beneficiaries and recipients of assistance programs.

Mind you, the will of the people will not be able to completely overrule the need for the larger program to focus on outside needs, but neither will the foundation be allowed to discount the will, need, and local context either.

Community members will be selected from among the general population, to directly hold the local community support services team members to account. For the most part, this task will consist of little to no real responsibility.

The Scribe or Archivist will of course be part of this team, creating annals and journals available to the general public. However, in the event that any decisions do need to be made at the local level, the general population will itself determine whether or not the Support Services Team members are or have accurately reflected the will of the people at the domestic level.

In the event that abuses of power or excessive personal gains begin magically appearing, the social support services team members will be subject to an immediate recall, the vote shall be negated at the domestic level, and shall be taken up again after the local election of new support services team.

The potential for delays in operations should persuade the incorporated body not to attempt to bury funds merely for the sake of increasing profit margins, but ensure there is a direct benefit to the local communities effected, so that operations can expand as quickly as possible. The foundation should, theoretically at least, consider only the benefits to the domestic programs and the overall positive impact on operations.

Is this system flawless?

Probably not.

People who crave power will inevitably seek to gain more power in order to use that to get even more power and control.

It is hoped at least, that by rejoining those at the very top in a binding relationship to those at the very bottom, even if through mandated service, that the potential for financial losses for the incorporated body, the inability of the foundation to expand operations outside the benefit of the people, and the self-interest of those who are the ultimate beneficiaries and recipients will, at the very least, provide a much more balanced and weighted system that is less prone to abuses, and better situated to ultimately serve to the benefit of everyone involved.