Social Programs, Parasitic Economic Relationships,and the Scope of Government

            In the American society, like many major societies in the world, there is an arrangement made between the Government and the people where social programs and initiatives are developed to aid the poor, increase quality of life, and aid in fostering public health, recreation, and productivity. The great debate in society is how this arrangement is made and carried out. People on the left argue that the best way to have an economy that is fair and allows for the accumulation and development of wealth for the majority of people instead of a small minority of economic elites is through the taxation of the wealthy and large conglomerates, corporate entities, and private firms and redistributing the taxed revenue to social programs like medicaid and social security as well as infrastructure programs. This kind of arrangement by default requires an expansive and far reaching government. It is a good idea to an extent. In the past such policies have led to prosperity in many classes and sectors of the economy and society. The problem remains, can the government serve in the people's interest, maintain a level of accountability, and maintain a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of its people? Governments throughout the world have been known to go against the interests of the people for the sake of consolidating and accumulating more power for itself. On the right, the prevailing economic philosophy is that heavy taxation with every method and in every sector of the economy strangles economic growth and reduces prosperity for the majority of the economy. They advocate for small and less intrusive government and low taxes throughout the classes and a great reduction in social programs and spending. It is also a good idea with respect to the priorities of the Right. Regulation on exchanges and taxation on revenue can indeed strangle economic growth and reduce the freedoms of private individuals to do what they will with the capital and resources they earn and own. The problem is, can you trust massive conglomerates of people within corporate entities or private firms to serve in the people's interest, maintain a level of accountability, and maintain a moral and ethical responsibility to take care and give back to the society that has given so much to them.
              In terms of social initiatives, systems that provide essential services, healthcare, criminal rehabilitation, the reduction of substance abuse and it's prevention, and the improvement of infrastructure and cultural and recreational development, can, I believe, be developed, initiated, and sustained without the redistribution of wealth through taxation. I think you almost have to at this point. I believe that we have reached a point in our country where special interests have reached a power that is politically un-usurpable, i.e. they cannot be reeled in and brought back to a level playing field with the rest of society. The reason I believe this is that these interests have acquired and maintained a level of influence and relative control of the body politic from their lobbying of elected officials and their shaping of policy in the political process that is unparalleled in our history. As a result, I believe that the only way to make a system that is fair and sustainable and has the potential for long term prosperity and allows for the greatest social development for the majority of people is education and awareness of the long term consequences of predatory business practices and parasitic economic relationships. I don't think we are going to see tax redistribution of economic wealth, simply because the politics of the country will not sway that direction. As a result, we are going to have to think of ways to incentivize or regulate large moneyed interests in a way that does not increase the reach of the government yet prevents major companies from having de-facto market control within their respective markets and dissuading predatory and parasitic economic practices.
            To further elaborate what I mean when I say this, I am going to describe to you a biological parasitic relationship. In nature there are some organisms that enter into a relationship with another organism, called a host, that provides sustenance and growth for the parasite at the host's expense. In many cases the parasite is such a detriment to the host that the host dies. Consequentially when the host dies, in many circumstances the parasite also dies because its source of sustenance no longer can provide the sustenance. Yes, the parasite often reproduces and spreads to another host, but the outcome remains the same. This type of relationship is inherently destructive, albeit reproductively successful for the parasite. Let's apply this to businesses. A parasitic business practice is when a business or organization sets up its method of making profits in a way that leaves the consumers at an economic disadvantage, such as price gauging, predatory lending, and exploitative exchanges of many kinds, and a sector of the economy is unfairly drained of wealth while the business or corporate entity reaps extremely high profits. This is parasitic in the sense that when a certain sector or class within the economy is destabilized by this leaching of wealth, then the whole economy is destabilized because that sector or class no longer has as much capital to finance homes, cars, commodities of many kinds, even food, and every sector of the economy is hurt because of the lack of purchases of their products and services. This leaching of the poor and middle class also leads to political instability, because if the lower classes feel like they are getting the raw end of the deal, there might be violent consequences for society when people feel like they are being oppressed. It's not just governments that can oppress. It can also be very powerful corporate and private organizational entities, because, like governments, they are run by some of the most flawed and corruptible creatures on this earth; human beings.
           I don't trust big government, but i also realize that big private entities operate in a very similar manner as governments do. As a result, my solution would be do break up power and put a check on authority, which in some ways we already do. Economically, I believe we need to make markets more competitive and less centralized into a few small groups who in many cases behave parasitically with respect to their consumers. As far is improving society, I want to develop some way of incentivizing moneyed interests to give back to the community and society, MUCH more so than they already do. I believe one method in doing so is raising the awareness that predatory and parasitic practices are inherently self-destructive, because if you drain your consumer base of it's wealth and capital, they will eventually no longer be able to afford your products and services. As a result, moneyed interests should devote a fairly large amount of their resources in finding ways to alleviate poverty, get people working, make healthcare affordable enough so people aren't going bankrupt when they get sick or injured, help alleviate the production, distribution and consumption of destructive commodities, like drugs and certain weapons, and improving the quality of education and opportunities. If companies realize that short term gains sometimes can have long term detrimental consequences for everyone, and that patience in business and economic growth with the implementation of sustainable economic practices that greatly reduce the occasionally devastating impacts of recession and downturns and inequality can lead to a much healthier, much more stable, and much more prosperous society, then we will have a future that is much brighter than it is now.