With each election cycle the people grow wearier of politicians who can’t get anything “done” – perennial gridlock maintains a perpetual status quo that breeds disdain for all things political. History teaches that as a community grows into a nation, then a country and finally an empire, the ensuing proliferation of voices brings action to a standstill. This sets the stage for a strong leader with a message of salvation. Finally! Someone who will do something! People get so frustrated they almost don’t care what is done as long as someone is changing things. At least with change there is at a chance their lot might improve. Witness the broad popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders; they both tell the people exactly what they want to hear, namely that their problems are not their fault and that if you only give either one the power he’ll make their lives great again.
However, there is an alternative to resigned acceptance of a dictator in chief. To uncover the alternative we must first be brave enough to ask: why is nothing getting done? Is it because a handful is maliciously plotting to undermine good ideas? Quite the contrary. It is our greatest strength, our ideas, our freedom of thought, that is the “downfall” here. Too many ideas all competing brings about not gridlock but equilibrium. No one idea can dominate because so many are equally appealing. But this will not stand! How can one rule without dominance? Perhaps dominance is not needed because human societies require no rulers to maintain order. Witness the “anarchy” among Protestant denominations. There are over 30,000 of them and without a single Protestant “ruler” somehow it all works just fine. Is this religious anarchy a thing to be feared? Quite the contrary, we universally welcome it as part of fundamental human liberty. Odd then that political free association is not likewise permitted and is instead smeared with fear-tinged epithets such as “anarchy”.
The real enemy is the notion that government can only “work” as long as unwilling people are forced to participate. It is like if a hundred people went into a McDonalds to order but food could not be served until at least 51 of them agreed on what to eat, and then all 100 would have to have the same meal. Let’s instead go to Burger King where everyone can have it their way. If I can order a hamburger while you order chicken nuggets then why is it so hard to let me opt out of Social Security even while you voluntarily choose to opt in? Life insurance doesn’t require participation of the entire country to “work”, so then why should a simple income insurance policy need it.
What if we just let each group implement their ideas as they desired, holding only those who voluntarily consent to such rules to be subject to them. If the progressive democrats want to have a single payer, massive minimum wage, cradle-to-grave-social security system then let them. Likewise if the social conservative republicans want to have drug, alcohol, gay-marriage, abortion-rejecting set of standards then let them. Nothing is stopping them from forming voluntary associations where all like-minded people agree to abide by such rules. If either side does not want to live among those who disagree with them then each is free to form private communities (á la the Amish) where no outside ideas will intrude upon their peace. If your ideas can only work if others are forced to participate in them then it’s time to examine the morality of your ideas.
A carriage goes nowhere if some horses refuse to move, some wish to go left, and some right. Better to release those with their own ideas and move forward rather than employing brutal force to bring all in line. In order to receive freedom, you must first be willing to give it.
Isn’t that the fundamental concept of “states rights”? Instead of sending money to DC, having the central government skim some off the top (and the middle) and send it back to the states with strings attached how about not sending the money to DC and letting the state or city or county levy taxes allocate funds where the electorate can actually influence the elected? Not to mention that fewer taxes would be required because the federal overhead would “disappear”.
Yes, in a way, because the states should be allowed the freedom to do as they wish and if people don’t like it then populations will shift. However the same metaphor can in turn be applied to the states themselves, i.e. they should allow the cities or counties to do as they please, and in turn one could argue on that principle the individuals residing within the city or county should not be coerced into accepting that which they do not agree with. Of course if we actually removed the federal and state level of control in practice cities or counties would be much more responsive as people could more easily vote with their feet and move one town over if things got out of hand. Presently we have zero choice, there is no where to move to that is not substantially similar to where we are now.