Republic Rules - The U.S.A. is a great representative republic.

The job of government is to provide certain services that we, as individuals, can’t provide for ourselves… police and fire departsments, the military, building roads and bridges, and so on.  I object when either elected officials (politicians) or bureaucrats (career government employees) overreach and try to control the lives of citizens in a manner beyond the charter of government.

For example, I think it’s fine for the government to educate people about healthy eating habits and to ensure our food supply chain is safe, but TELLING people what they can or cannot eat is unreasonable.  Over the years, there have been many laws proposed and some passed to ban the consumption of certain foods or, at least, make it very difficult to do so.  Smoking has been banned in many, many locales.  Trans fats are about to be eliminated in New York City.  Many schools ban vending machines with chips, soft drinks, and candy.  The list goes on.

Now, the city council wants to prevent any new fast food restaurants from being built in South Los Angeles.  They are concerned that the obesity rate is too high in this area.

Now, the intent of such government actions is laudable… it would be great if people weren’t so obese, or if they ate healthier, or if they exercised more, or if they watched less TV, or if they read more, or if they….

… but where does it stop?

And what gives the government the right to tell ME what I can eat?  They can SUGGEST.  They can RECOMMEND.  They can EDUCATE.  But they should not DICTATE.

Where is this power of government founded?  It certainly isn’t in the Constitution.

And what happened to personal responsibility?  WE can make our own decisions.  We SHOULD make our own decisions.  The really bad part about the government TELLING us what we can and cannot do is that, over time, people become CONDITIONED to that… and begin to look to the government to tell us how to do other things.   The government becomes our nanny, whose job it is to take care of us.  We can’t do anything without the government’s approval.  And, when things go wrong, the government must help us…. after all, we can’t take care of ourselves!

Our country was founded on the principle of FREEDOM… not restriction.  It seems government entities, and their scope of control, are expanding at an alarming rate.   We need LESS governing, not more.

All too often, people look at a problem and try to propose a perfect solution.  While that is a good goal, it is most frequently an unrealistic goal.  Most solutions are just practical ones… the best option given the circumstances at the time.  Sometimes, it is close to a perfect solution but other times it is far away.

A professor in a laboratory can come up with a perfect product, for example, but that may very well NOT be the one that ends up being manufactured on the production floor of the factory.  Sometimes, it just isn’t practical to build a product using the ultimate materials or the most precise methods… while you could do it, the product would cost so much nobody could afford it!  So, engineers look at alternatives and decide on the best ones… compromises are made and a good product is made at a far more reasonable cost… and many, many more people can enjoy the benefits of using it simply because it is priced low enough for them to buy it.

Engineers are good at coming up with the best solution to a problem given a limitation of resources.  Sure, they know the perfect solution… but recognize the reality at hand and arrive at the practical solution.  They don’t simply give up because the answer isn’t “perfect”.  They don’t delude themselves into believing only the “perfect” answer will get a job done.  They don’t stubbornly insist on the “perfect” solution when they have found a practical alternative.  Engineers don’t get emotional when the “perfect” solution cannot be found… they just do the best possible given what they have to work with.

Our country is great… but it does have some problems right now.  I believe many, if not most, of these problems are because politicians and citizens are trying to come up with “perfect” solutions where they might not exist… making decisions based on emotions rather than reality… fooling others (and perhaps themselves) into thinking their answers will actually do the job when they will not.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like many of our elected representatives have an engineering mindset.  True, engineers don’t have a reputation for being “people persons”… which appears to the the main (if not only) requirement for political office… but they DO have a reputation for finding good solutions to complicated problems.   So, if we can’t have an engineer representing us, why can’t our elected officials at least LISTEN to a trusted engineer?  Henry Ford once admitted he wasn’t the best engineer in the world… but he HIRED the best engineers.

If we are REALLY going to solve the problems facing our country, politicians will have to listen less to their polling advisors and more to “engineering” advisors.   We need to talk less about “perfect” solutions that will never be realized and more about “practical” solutions that can actually be achieved.

For the very best discussion on one of the basic tenets our country was founded on, equality, I strongly suggest you read Chapter 5 of Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose. This is the most readable book on economics I’ve ever found.  It explains things in a straightforward manner that makes good common sense… a rarity considering the author is a Nobel Prize winner.

The Declaration of Independence states clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the words “all men are created equal” seem rather simple, they have been the focus of considerable discussion since first written.  Friedman notes that true equality cannot be achieved, and therefore the words cannot be taken literally, but views the interpretation of this phrase as having evolved from its original intent to its current incarnation:

• EQUALITY BEFORE GOD - obviously, not all people are alike… everyone has different capabilities and characteristics:  physical, intellectual, emotional.  Here on Earth we are, in fact, NOT equal… but, before God, as individuals, we ARE.  Our Founding Fathers believed government should not impose its will upon individuals but, rather, provide us liberty.  In a time where Kings ruled over Subjects, the United States began with the idea that every person was to be his own ruler.

The obvious contradiction was the existence of slavery at the time.  The people were divided on this issue.  While many wanted to abolish it, many did not.  The Founders recognized that there would be no unity on this issue and, had the point been pressed, our country would not have achieved independence.  Many more years passed before support of “freedom for all” reached the point where its reality was possible… and even then, it took a Civil War.

• EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY - once “all men” were equal not only in the eyes of God but also under the law, then the concept changed.  Again, a literal interpretation is not possible:  try as we might, the opportunity of a blind person simply cannot be made equal to that of a sighted person… and there are a multitude of other examples.  Instead, it means government should not impose restrictions that would limit people from pursuing  any position they seek (and, obviously, have the talents to achieve).  The determinant should only be ability… not color, religion, sex nor any other irrelevant characteristic.  The government’s role, again, provides an environment based on liberty.

• EQUALITY OF OUTCOME - over the past few decades, a different interpretation has been gaining momentum… and it is troublesome.  While the concepts of equality before God and equality of opportunity both promote individual liberty, equality of outcome REDUCES liberty. Once again, this idea cannot be interpreted literally, so it becomes based on a vague notion of “fairness”… which begs the question:  who determines what is fair?  The trend is toward bigger government confiscating wealth from some and distributing it to others, which is totally contrary to the “American” way of life.

We should note here that this entire philosophy is rooted in Karl Marx’s “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability”… with a modern take on it:  “Fair shares for all”.

It is one thing for government to provide a “level playing field” (equal opportunity) but an entirely different matter for it to take from one and give to another (equal outcome).  You can nurture the same ground that two seedlings are planted in and they will both benefit, yet one may still grow taller than another.  You cannot chop a tree in half and stack it on top of another tree and expect them both to survive… nor would you call them equal.

Those who see the virtues of Equality of Opportunity and the fallacies of Equality of Outcome need to speak up.  Education is the only way for people to understand the advantages of the former and the ultimate failure of the latter.  Sadly, our education system has become corrupted and will not teach this lesson, so it is up to the voice of individuals to convey this important warning to others.