Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:44:11 PM
This is an analogy
I made a long time ago, but it is a good one, and one deserving a bit of elaboration. It isn't terribly long, so please bear with me for a moment while I set things up.
Let us imagine a small village somewhere, isolated from the world. Maybe in the mountains or on a small island. There is one official, John, the constable. However, John has only one tool, a pistol, and only one power, the authority to shoot anyone he thinks necessary. However, John also has a serious check on his authority, if the citizens think he has not done a good job, they can vote once a year to have him shot for dereliction of duty.
So, what happens whenever a problem arises? People run to John.
Does it matter if it is something John can fix? Of course not! As he is responsible for everything, and can be blamed if he does not fix it, John is the first stop for any problem. And often this works. If bandits steal things, John can shoot them. If people behave badly, John can threaten to shoot them until they behave better. When the problem is one of public order, John is a good choice, and the system works.
But what about when the system does not work right? When people come to John with other problems?
Maybe there is a communicable disease spreading, so people come to John. Well, given his limited range of options, John has to decide, let the problem run its course, hope the doctors can fix it, or, maybe, appear to "do something" by shooting the contagious to stop the spread.
Similarly, when unemployment is high, what does John do? Wait for the economy to right itself, and risk being shot for dereliction fo duty. Or go threaten employers until they hire enough people, even if in the long run it harms the economy?
And now, I hope, you can see what my analogy means. This is the problem with our government. The "reformers" in the 19th century began to take our limited government and try to use it for inappropriate goals. As a result, the people came to expect politicians to solve things that are not appropriate for government to fix. Rather than limiting government to protecting rights and settling disputes, we started thinking government should manage money, stimulate the economy, provide health care, figure out what is healthy and what is not, manage banks, and so on.
And the outcomes were about as good as John and his pistol trying to solve a cholera outbreak.
But, my analogy points out another fact many overlook. It is not the politicians who are to blame. They may have started it, and they may cash in on our willingness to grant them power, but the real blame rests on
US, on the citizens who
run to politicians to fix things that are not properly the function of government. It is our over-reliance on the state and our unwillingness to solve problems ourselves that subjects us to a growing and ever more intrusive state.
Until we change our own attitudes, until we come to truly demand a smaller state,
we will deserve what we get.
POSTSCRIPT
A good list of articles on similar topics can be found in the postscript to my essay "
Revisiting Gay Marriage".