Intermediary Epidemic

As I look at the problems society is facing today there is one major element that seems to be congruent with each structure that is seriously crippling the freedom people have.  This is the imposition of an intermediary that is needed in every important faction of our culture.  These “middlemen”  seem to be accepted, tolerated, imposed, normalized, and most eerily trusted.

To begin, I want to say it is not the individuals that are the chosen intermediaries that I necessarily have a problem with.  It is the imposition of the necessity of intermediary that does not really serve much of a purpose, except to perpetuate its own existence.  What I am talking about is lawyers, insurance companies, banks, and other like corporate implements that are basically making up jobs, and someone is telling us we have to go along with it.  I really feel this system of intermediaries is seriously crippling our social structure.  I do not have the answer on how to liberate from this, but I know that awareness of a disease is the first step to cure.

If I go into a court room without an attorney, regardless of my situation, I am not going to be taken very seriously, and most likely will not get very far.  We have invented so much legalese that we created this whole system that the general public can barely interpret.  This induces feelings of helplessness and reliance on whatever means the systems determines is appropriate for navigating that structure.  I can only see this as demeaning to the individual and propelling an atmosphere of reliance on the lawyers.  I do not think this is necessary, and I certainly do not think it is healthy.  The bigger issue with the general public not understanding the structure is that corruption is so imminent.  When corruption threatens the freedoms of people, it should not be tolerated, but it is.  I feel we tolerate this  due to the conditioning of the helplessness that comes from the inherent structure of the system itself, thus can be discarded.

The dangers of the intermediary system in the legal structure has manifested in the privatization of incarceration centers.  What is happening is that institutions are getting financing to incarcerate individuals, and this is a great threat to human rights.  The incarceration is imposed by the systems that are making money from it, so this is clearly a negative cycle.  There are woman in jail who have been there for years awaiting  jury trial.  Lost in the system, these people lose their freedom without due process.  This is particularly inflicted on the poorer population who cannot afford representation, bond, probationary fees and so on.  This has allowed a whole segment of our society to become targets for an new institutionalized slavery.  Today we face a system where the rights for the individuals are violated due to class.

Another intermediary that is imposed is the insurance companies and banks.  They are given the right to put up money they do not technically have for loans and insurance coverage.  We have accepted that we need them to back up, and insure our assets, but they are highly unstable.  They are at the whims of a market pendulum, and the interest is all for profit.  My opinion is that if we are going to impose legally that we must have these intermediaries, then the only ethical way is for the system to be non-profit.  Truly for the people.  The fact that we are legally bound to private corporations that have limited legal accountability is a corruption in itself.

The intermediaries that have caused me such frustration recently is in the job sector.  The fact that so many people are more willing to pay a company than an individual.  There are many examples of this, from cleaning services to personal assistants.  People trust that the corporation has there better interest, but it is completely unreliable. There are companies that I have worked for that provide help for people in their homes.  Instead of trusting a person they find and hire, people go for a company reputation.  They pay twice as much, and the actual person working with their assets may change, and there is little personal dedication that is cultivated because the employee is not making  fair wage for the work involved.  So, is it better trust a company with your assets, when the actual employee handling your assets is struggling?  The company is the only entity that wins, and they are only acting as an intermediary.

My opinion is these structures may be beneficial, but we must not be bullied to ever let a necessity become more a burden for the people than the help of the public.  This is something we should demand. I particularly prefer  one on one interaction, personal accountability and trust. If we cut out all the money poured into intermediaries that have dubious benefit, I can foresee a lot more financial freedom for the individual.

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