Unless I Have To

Never will I ever, outside of having no other choice:

Drive an electric car. I hate that society through government power is trying to make us drive them, and is trying force the auto industry to make them. Nature is a lot more resilient than we think; climate change is not destroying the Earth. Besides, as P.J. O'Rourke said ages ago about fossil fuels, "Fat lot of good they did lying in the ground for millions of years."

Saturday rant over.

Raw Power

Many of my liberal friends live in fear of greedy big businessmen. They supposedly have unimaginable power, and they can't wait to milk every red cent they can out of the little guy. It makes me wonder, if it's all about who has the money and power, why aren't they more afraid of the government?

Say what you will about the businessmen - many of whom may indeed be greedy and powerful - it's the government who has the most money and the most power. 

You can elect - ha, ha - not to spend your money at a business. Yes, you can. What's more, you will not be tossed into the pokey for it. You can control, in a direct, no nonsense manner, how much to give big business. Try doing that when the government sends you a tax bill to pay for their projects, many of which you may rightly oppose. You'll find you must pay government no matter what. No other option exists for you. 

Well, except fines and prison.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about your taxes so far. I haven't touched on the hundreds of other areas where government can tell you what and what not to do, or face fines and imprisonment for daring to thumb your nose at them. All that lies beyond the power of any given private company.

Yet greedy big business is a greater threat to our person and property. Go figure. 

A Sermon (though not on Religion)

One of the arguments made across the political and national spectrums in favor of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports is easily summed up as, the government makes us do other things, so why not those?

This is an intellectually dishonest argument; it is simplistic and ignores a great many things. To begin with, an awful lot of the things government compels us to do are in fact morally wrong. We can debate about the specifics, but suffice it to say (and I believe that in their hearts even my liberal and progressive friends would agree) that there are areas where existing government intrusion into our lives is wrong. Or are there actually folks out there willing to argue that an act or idea is right merely because a government thinks so? Let's hope not.

Yes, there are times and places where government does in fact have the right to cajole individuals into acting certain ways and in certain manners. But as a practical matter governments cannot dictate every move we make (though they may try). If government were to attempt to really make us do right rather than wrong in every conceivable instance (if we could actually conceive of every instance) I assure you that the amount of new regulations necessary would make the current tax code read like a children's book. The ifs, ands, and wherefores would require that much analysis. And they would still be incomplete.

Yet governments must act against the truly awful things which may occur in the world. I have to believe that, as a matter of right reason, there are guides and standards which we can appeal to in determining where and why they can act. Indeed anyone who argues for any public act at all must, in their hearts, believe this too. Aquinas taught that as government can't see to everything, it should only prohibit (or by logical argument encourage) only those things so vile and debased (or so good and and laudable) that without whose prohibition (or sanction) civil society could not exist. 

The question then becomes, is COVID so great a threat that it requires massive government intrusion into our lives?

Emphatically, no.

It's Location, Location, Location

One of the most basic axioms a conservative should have in his arsenal is known as the Principle of Subsidiarity. Plainly stated, it says that things should be done on the most local level possible. Why? Because that it the surest way to get necessary things accomplished in the most efficient manner.

The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.

As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at a desk.

There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.

As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.

We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.