A child falls and scrapes his knee. (OMG! he used a gender specific pronoun again). One of the first things the child will do, after he realizes that he is hurt and starts to cry, is to look for help, most likely in the form of his mother. There is a lesson here. If mommy isn’t there at the time, who would he go to for help? Perhaps his father or an older sibling. But, if they are not around either, then it may be a baby sitter, or teacher or close friend, and if that isn’t an option then maybe there is a neighbor or local Police officer willing to help.
There is a philosophical problem-solving hierarchy at work here; one that is natural and practical. Clearly the child wouldn’t call child services, or his state representative or congressman; Why? Because even a baby understands that problems are best solved and solved best, close to home. No one can understand the needs or the special circumstances that are germane to an individual or group, better than those who have an intimate relationship with them.
So why do so many of us put our trust in bureaucracies and departments that have long ago abandoned any concern for the individuals they are lording over.
In my view, any attempt to solve complicated problems by a central power authority is an exercise in futility and stupidity. I would hope that one may consider this philosophical premise when politicians are pretending that they are going to “solve” problems such as health care, energy, education, student loan debt, jobs, et cetera by creating or adding another department or layer of bureaucracy. (I intentionally left out Anthropogenic Global Warming as it is really an agenda in search of a problem) Have any of the above challenges actually been improved by any of these departments? I think not. Individual liberty and invention are the best ways to solve almost any problem. Even the programs with moderate success have been ruined by seemingly well-intentioned politicians. The larger the bureaucracy and the more centralized the power, the less likely are those problems to be “solved” and the more likely they are to be miss-used, abused and corrupted by those with the power to do so. Moreover, there is an inverse relationship, as we will have less freedom and less options when it comes to dealing with our own problems and issues in life. The pyramid of tyranny is exactly opposite the pyramid of liberty. The tyrant sits atop of a mountain of underlings who are told what they must do, what words they cannot use, what projects will be funded and what strings are attached to them. Is there anyone who thinks that this is a good idea? Unfortunately, there are. In this election there are to opposing philosophies at odds with each other. Forget about the people on the top of the ticket, they are just a symptom of the reaction to the problem. One philosophy holds that the individual is sovereign and the state should be held to the minimal power to do it’s constitutionally required jobs with the maximum amount of freedom and liberty to the citizen. The other philosophy is that of the administrative state. Distrust of the individual, class and race envy, and eat the rich are the primary indicators of this mentality. Also, the philosophies are not directly related to party. Never Trumper’s are securely ensconced in the administrative state; they fear their influence will be undermined by a president like Trump. It is estimated that about 20 percent of the people at Trump rallies are democrats and people who have never voted. I believe that they understand the philosophy differences and have chosen to side with the president despite his patent flaws. I would hope that some of the more reasonable democrat friends would consider that this election is not about two men but the difference between liberty and a gradual decline into chaos and mob rule. In my view the “biggest threat to our democracy” is in those who think we have one. What we have, should we be able to keep it, is a republic. Remember that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.