Is There a Way Out?

Column 2018-9 (12/10/18)

In recent columns I have explored the strife and destruction that results when ever expanding, intrusive government interferes with more and more of the personal choices made by individuals. Even temporary majorities of legislators impose the choices of some on everyone. Once a law is passed it is all but impossible to repeal it, no matter how silly or destructive it is.

Can the seemingly endless growth of strife and destruction be contained and rolled back before the US ends up in the same pit Venezuela wallows in today? A look at history isn’t encouraging. The halls of history are littered with the carcases of nations destroyed by excessive government.

Majority rule democracy encourages voters to exploit and control each other. No where is it written that democracy demands that a mere majority must be allowed to unleash the force and violence of government against everyone. Florida already requires a 60 percent super majority to amend its constitution. In the last election Florida enacted the requirement that taxes be approved by a 60 percent super majority.

There is no reason why a super majority shouldn’t be required to pass every law. There are many reasons why it should be required. It is beyond the scope of a mere column to consider how large the super majority should be. A two thirds super majority would be good for starting consideration. This is the margin commonly required to over ride a veto.

Allowing a mere majority to unleash the force of government against an almost equally large minority is absurd. It is also a formula for strife and disaster. Why shouldn’t the proponent of any law be required to convince more than a mere majority that the law is necessary?

Requiring super majority approval won’t guarantee that all laws will be wise and wonderful. It will reduce the number of laws that allow some to impose their wills on others. This will dial down the strife we now see raging around us.

We have 200 thousand pages of federal laws and regulations, and who knows how many pages of state and local laws. It is too late to save civilization by merely making it more difficult to make new laws. Requiring a super majority to repeal laws would add to our problem, rather than solving it. Also, only requiring super majority approval for new laws would be too little too late.

I will briefly outline a plan that could work. I am not under the illusion that it will be easy to enact. No doubt there will be a few wrinkles to work out. Such as, how to deal with judges who believe they are legislators.

The starting point is that all laws would require super majority approval. All existing laws could be put to a vote for reapproval. Reapproval would be initiated by a petition signed by a percentage, perhaps 30 percent, of the members of the legislative body. If the law failed to get super majority approval it would be repealed. This would prevent the dead hand of past lawmakers from ruling the present. A similar procedure would apply to laws subject to popular vote.

Even if requiring super majority approval of all laws only postpones an inevitable doom, at least it would have accomplished more than doing nothing. With at least some voters now willing to reject the principal of “a simple majority should rule everyone,” the time may be right to remove the fatal flaw from democracy.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2018

Albert D. McCallum

The Danger From Overgrown Government

Column 2018-8 (12/3/18)

The headlines are filled with reports of individuals ready, even eager, to resort to violence against anyone who so much as dares to express a conflicting idea. Even more troubling, this opposition to free expression permeates universities that were supposedly places to express and debate conflicting ideas in the search for truth.

Now we see individuals banding together around what they claim is an unassailable truth that they discovered last week. It is so painful to these individuals to hear their truth challenged that all contrary expression must be squelched. One might ask, if this truth is so obviously unassailable, Why is it so fragile that it can’t stand up to being challenged?

These unassailable truths aren't usually about mere opinions. Red is the most beautiful color. Broccoli is the world’s best vegetable. Cotton is the best cloth. Usually the “truth” in question is one its advocates want to impose on everyone else. Challenges to that great “truth” may make the ignorant masses reluctant to jump on the band wagon.

In reality the advocates for the great ”truth” are bullies who want to force their will onto everyone else. The function of government is to force the will of the powerful on to others. It is simply, do it my way or I will hurt you. Thus, it is inevitable that the battles over “truth” will be in the political arena. We already see the battle to redefine free speech as the freedom to say only what the definers want you to say.

The advocates for a great “truth” try to cloak their emotional appeal with the mantle of science. Their actions involve little more than the shouting of slogans. Most of those threatened by the great “truth” respond with slogans of their own. The shouting soon reaches the point where the hot heads turn to violence.

What can we do to turn away from the senseless swamp of endless destructive strife? The only answer that will work is, remove the cause of the strife. Stifling speech is like trying to plug a volcano. Sooner or later it will blow up.

The strife we see about us is the inevitable product of our slide into majority rule democracy. Keep in mind the key word is majority. Thoughtful people long ago figured out that majority rule leads to a war of everybody against everybody. In the end there are no winners.

Under pure majority rule 50 percent plus one can do as they please to 50 percent minus one. We aren’t quite there yet. We are close enough to reek havoc.

As long as government interferes with almost every choice, the war with each other will rage on. If we are to preserve civilization, we must dial back government intervention in everyone’s choices. So long as we try to use government to control each other, the strife will rage on.

Two common desires are in conflict. Most people want to live their lives and make their choices as they see fit. Many also desire to force choices on to others. When government enacts a law it says to everyone, do it my way or we will hurt you.

The more laws we have, the more conflicts we will have between the backers of the laws and their victims. The only way to dial down the strife is to shrink government to where it isn’t constantly in everyone's face. Those who want people to quit using plastic straws should use persuasion, not the strong arm of the law.

If we insist on using majority rule democracy to run each other's lives, the war of everyone against everyone is inevitable.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2018

Albert D. McCallum

Who Should Make Our Choices?

Column 2018-7 (11/26/18)

Disagreement among individuals is inevitable. There probably isn’t a person on earth who agrees with you 100 percent. How many of those disagreeing people are you prepared to punch out, put in jail, or even kill because they don’t share your opinions? Probably not very many, if any.

If one person wants toast for breakfast, and another prefers pancakes, Are they likely prepared to fight and kill over their disagreement? Suppose that the toast lover starts a campaign to ban pancakes. The disagreement now goes beyond ideas. The freedom to choose pancakes is now at stake. World War III probably won’t flare up in a dispute over breakfast food.

What if government sides with the toast lover and bans pancakes? Government says to everyone, “If you eat pancakes, we will hurt you.” The threat of force and violence is now on the table. The ball is set to roll. How far will it roll?

The first step may be to levy a fine against the pancake eater. If he gives in and pays the fine, end of case. What if he refuses to pay? If government gives in, again the case ends.

Suppose government takes the next step and sends armed enforcers to collect the fine. The victim of the fine resists in every way possible. The victim will end up dead or in prison.

Prison isn't the end if the victim continues his resistance to what he sees as an unjust interference in his life. If he continues his resistance he is all but certain to eventually be killed by government.

The only reason we don’t see many such violent endings is that the victims give in to government. The threat of force and violence lies behind every law. There is a reason why police are called law enforcers. When someone says, “There ought to be a law,” his real demand is for government to hurt those who refuse to obey the proposed law.

The more laws we have, the more threats of force and violence we face. The more we unleash threats of force and violence on those we disagree with, the less peaceful and less civilized we become. Millions who wouldn’t resort to force and violence themselves, eagerly commission government to do the dirty work.

The bigger government grows the more threats of force and violence we all face. The problem isn’t that one group is trying to force its ideas on to everyone else. The problem is that nearly everyone has ideas they want to force onto everyone. We can’t sort out the black hats and the white hats because almost everyone wears a gray hat. They resist the choices forced on to them by others while seeking to forcibly impose their own ideas. As government expands we sink ever deeper into a war of everyone against everyone.

So long as everyone is busy imposing on others, strife, animosity, hatred, and violence will grow. The first step toward peace and civility must be to allow peaceful people to make there own choices, rather than being coerced to accept someone else’s choices.

Disagreements over what to eat for breakfast aren’t very important when no one forces their menu onto anyone. Unless there is a compelling reason for everyone making the same choice, everyone should be free to make his own nonviolent choice. The alternative is to continue what we are doing now and eventually destroy each other.

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2018

Albert D. McCallum