Judy Phelan |
Review of The Death of Common Sense
Submitted by Aunt Judy on Thu, 2009-03-05 09:33
I am going to copy a review here that is about a book, The Death of Common Sense. That book together with The Tyranny of Good Intentions is one of the best I have seen to show why we have such a mess, why individual responsibility has almost completely gone away in this country. The problem is: How do we turn this around? I was looking at a website last night for the Future of Freedom Foundation. The mission of the Future of Freedom Foundation "is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government". (I thought that is what we were supposed to be about anyway!). They try to spread the word but I could not see where they actively DO anything about it. Anyway, I thought I would just throw this out here and if anyone wants to read it and/or comment please do. Below is the quote reviewing The Death of Common Sense by Philip Howard:
"Law has replaced humanity and process supercedes reason.,
| By | Charles G. Hardin, chardin@govreform.org (Arlington, Virginia) - See all my reviews |
Philip Howard's insights help us understand why government appears arbitrary, almost never able to deal with real-life problems in a way which reflects an understanding of the situation. Peppered with pointed anecdotes about absurd regulatory inflexibility and the lack of the use of judgement, Howard's book reveals that we have concocted a system of regulation that "goes too far while it does too little."
In the decades since WWII, specific legal mandates designed to keep government in check have proliferated. The result is not better government, but more and poorer government. In a free society, we are supposed to be free to do what we want unless it is prohibited. But highly detailed regulations proscribing exactly what to do turn us toward centralized uniformity, Howard says, where law has replaced humanity. Detailed rules and uniform procedures have nonuniform effects when applied to specific situations.
Our old system of common law recognized the particular situation and invited the application of common sense. Common law evolved with the changing times and its truth was relative, Howard tells us, not absolute. But in this century statutes have largely replaced common law, and in recent decades regulations have come to dominate the legal landscape. Howard observes that the Interstate Highway System (still the nation's largest public works program) was authorized in 1956 with a 28-page statute. Now, we attempt to cover every situation explicitly. He cites one contract lawyer who received a proposed definition of the words and/or that was over three hundred words in length. (Let alone the more recent and prominent lawyer who parsed carefully over the definition of what the word "is" is.)
Howard traces the growth of this regulatory "rationalism" from Max Weber - the German sociologist at the turn of the century who said that "Bureaucracy develops the more perfectly, the more it is `dehumanized'" - to Theodore Lowi - who in The End of Liberalism in 1979 saw greater regulatory specificity to be the antidote to special interest groups. But in truth, Howard shows us, the more precise we try to make the law, the more loopholes are created.
Centralized rules have caused us to cast away our common sense. Furthermore, "Coercion by government, the main fear of our founding fathers, is now its common attribute. But it was not imposed to advance some group's selfish purpose; we just thought it would work better this way. The idea of a rule detailing everything has had the effect of reversing the rule of law. We now have a government of laws against men."
The second section of Howard's book explains how the ritualization of bureaucratic process has brought us to the point where people argue, not about right and wrong, but about whether something was done the right way. He sees the agency as mainly a referee to the process, not a decision maker. He beautifully describes how the bureaucracy surges and falls, en masse, onto a decision. Even Sherlock Holmes wouldn't be able to identify an actual decision maker! The process decided.
In this maze of centralized, detailed regulation - a system designed to discourage individual responsibility - many have lost sight of what government is supposed to be doing. Howard argues that process is a defensive device; the more procedures, the less government can do. The paradox is that we demand an activist government while also demanding elaborate procedural protections against government. "The route to a public goal cannot be diverted through endless switchbacks of other public goals, for example, without losing sight of the original destination." He tells us that responsibility, not process, is the key ingredient to action. If responsibility is shared widely, then like the extreme where property is shared widely, it is like there being no responsibility at all.
Effective government, Howard suggests, is one which attracts the best people and gives them leadership responsibility. But we have created the opposite system, based on defensive formalisms, driving away good people who cannot abide the negativity of the process.
The last section of Howard's book explores the "rights revolution," where government has become "like your rich uncle under your personal control" and everyone now gets to be a part of a legally-mandated, discriminated-against minority. As rights weaken the lines of authority in our society, the walls of responsibility - such as how a teacher manages a classroom - have begun to crumble. We want government to solve social ills, but distrust it to do so. Congress has resolved this dilemma by using rights to transfer governmental powers to special interest groups. The result has not been bringing excluded groups into society, but rather has become the means of getting ahead in society. Howard makes the distinction that, "The rights that are the foundation of this country are rights against law. In James Madison's words, the Constitution provides for `protection of individual rights against all government encroachments, particularly by the legislature.' Rights - freedom of speech, property rights, freedom of association - were to be the antidote against any new law that impinged on those freedoms."
In this way, Howard finds that we have confused power with freedom. These new legislative rights aren't rights at all, no matter how righteous they sound. "They are blunt powers masquerading under the name of rights." He says we need to consider how these new rights impinge on what others consider to be their own freedoms. The flip side of the coinage of the new rights regime is called coercion.
Howard suggests that our loathing of government is not caused by its goals, but by its techniques. "How law works, not what it aims to do, is what is driving us crazy." Decision making must be transferred "from words on a page to people on the spot."
His book brings us closer to a place where what is right and reasonable, not the parsing of legal language, dominates the discussion. His thoughts shine needed light on the path to common sense and responsibility in government. "
»
- Aunt Judy's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 513 reads
Recent blog posts
Popular content
Today's:
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
rww says:
Haven't read the review yet but in response to your opening comment "They try to spread the word but I could not see where they actively DO anything about it." Come on! What the heck do you want them to do!! They are educating people. This is the only thing that can be effective.
Aunt Judy says:
In this age of the internet spreading the word is all that occurs. Why can't they get behind a candidate? Where is the campaign to send letters or sign petitions? There is no activity. Maybe it has to start at the grass roots level but these foundations don't seem to be doing anything to get them going either. Give a speech, write an article....people read it and go "oh yeah, that is exactly what I think, too". But your point is well taken (up to a point).
rww says:
They did get behind a candidate...Ron Paul. But apparently the people in this country do not want "individual liberty, free markets and limited government". "Spreading the word" is the best way to correct this and I beleive that the internet is the best way to do it. Ron Paul raised over 4 million in one day using just the internet. Again spreading the word is what its all about and organisations like the FFF, The Mises Institute, LRC and others are IMO a very effective tool.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John Quincy Adams
christopher says:
Compliments of Ron's sharing what he has learned from the libertarian movement, I can, off the top of my head, think of at least a dozen individuals who are now strong proponents of limited government (if they are not completely anti-state, as I am).
Education is the MOST important tool of the limited government (or anti-state) movement. Every time a supporter of the government is converted to liberty, our movement grows stronger by two.
Consider this: the constitution has ZERO power; it is only by the will of the people that the state rises or falls. The reason that the US government has become the behemoth that it is, is precisely because Americans allowed it -- and too many of us are cheering when we should be weeping.
The only way that government will ever be restrained, is if enough people care about keeping it in check. Education is not only the most important aspect of returning our country to liberty, but it is also the most vital aspect of maintaining it -- and NO, I don't think the state should be responsible for maintaining these truths. :)
While activism in the form of signing petitions, campaigning for less oppressive leaders, marching, etc. are all helpful, they ultimately fail in the absence of a deep understanding of the principles of liberty and individual responsibility. But even without these things, an oppressive state cannot stand if the populace has a deep understanding of these things. Chickens are fine, but without the egg, we would not have chickens for long.
Side note:
This position may help folks understand why I view anyone who supports the state in doing anything that requires coercion or aggression as being part of the problem -- not an irreparable one, but part of the problem all the same.
Aunt Judy says:
What good is education and patting each other on the back and agreeing with these ideas if we don't elect people to the senate and the house of representatives to make some changes? When I used the word 'candidate' in my previous comment I was not referring to presidential candidates, I was referring to congress (I know Ron Paul is a representative but he is only one man). I do understand that education is very important and the start of any movement. But education only goes so far. And maybe the right people are not being educated. Maybe our colleges and universities need to make some inroads; maybe we need to start some letter writing campaigns; maybe there need to be some stories on the mainstream tv news programs (the major networks, not just Lou Dobbs, etc). The people who watch CNN and the likes of Lou Dobbs are probably already converts. It is like preaching to the choir. I am amazed at the websites that are out there that espouse exactly what Ron and Chris have been pushing. But in spite of that there is no mainstream blitz. I am not saying the education part is bad. It is great! But on the internet you have to go looking for it. And if you are looking for it you are probably already a convert so to speak. So the education only goes so far. So, Chris and Ron, when are you guys running for office? Or do you have some other candidates in mind? I plan to write letters to my representatives for what it is worth. And maybe I can reach a few other people who might do the same thing. Oh, I read another good article about big government, Federal Government Growth Before the New Deal. It was interesting to me because a lot of people think that 'big government' started with the New Deal. But that is not the case. It even states that it started with the Constitution which gave the government more power than the Articles of Confederation. This was an interesting article; I will read more about the history aspect and verify some things for myself. One statement from the article:
"...how a government that began in 1776 as a protector of individual rights had by 1913 evolved into one that presumed to guarantee the economic welfare of its citizens."
christopher says:
Educated individuals understand the need, recognize the opportunity , and act appropriately (most of the time) -- you don't have to tell them what to do. This is all we need.
I have written my representatives. I have campaigned. I have spoken out publicly. I have donated hundreds of dollars to worthy candidates. I have done all these things because I was taught the principles of liberty. In return I have been laughed at, cursed, called a radical, and ignored.
I have come to realize that the media is sold out. I have learned that our elections are (or can be) a fraud. I understand that even a constitutional republic that uses coercion and aggression is wrong.
Though I will support candidates who seek to reduce the size of our state, my goal is to see it eliminated along with all other forms of aggression.
If you are interested in limited government activism, I recommend the Campaign for Liberty. Become a member. You will find many opportunities to advocate limited government.
I'm curious, did you vote for Ron Paul in the election? If not, do you wish you had?
Aunt Judy says:
No, did you? And no I do not wish that I had. He can do more in Congress I believe.
christopher says:
I did vote for Ron Paul. While I agree that constitutionally the president has very limited powers, I think placing an individual who respects the constitution in that position would do far more than Dr. Paul is currently accomplishing in the house. How do you see Dr. Paul being able to do more in the house than as president?
Aunt Judy says:
Two reasons (all personal of course):
1. Ron Paul is not 'presidential'. I cannot see him as president, dealing with world leaders, etc.
2. The president's hand is limited, and rightfully so, by Congress. Congress is where the change needs to start. Until we get some of those people out and the right kind of people in things will stay the same regardless of who is president. But on the other hand, I have to admit that a president can provide leadership and cause folks to follow him. I am afraid that Ron Paul is not that type of individual at the presidential level. Why has he after all these years not had a bigger following and support in Congress? Why haven't his peers seen the light? So maybe I defeated myself with that statement saying he could do more in Congress! What is he doing wrong? Working within the system he should be able to help turn things around. Taking it to the people is one aspect..but why can't he take it to his peers? Do his peers take him seriously? If not, why not?
christopher says:
I am convinced that the problem lies not with Ron Paul, but with his peers. Most of the folks in Congress are there for reasons other than doing what is right -- perhaps they are all trying to look presidential. Ron Paul speeks the truth, but his goals are NOT in line with the establishment. It is not the man that they dislike, but the message.
rww says:
1. Not as presidential as say George Bush? Ha!
2. His peers supported Sarah Palin for vice Pres and are now lead by Rush Limbaugh. And you are asking if his peers take him seriously?
Aunt Judy says:
I did not compare him to George Bush or anyone else (Bush was not presidential either). I just said he does not seem 'presidential'. I admire the man! But why isn't he taken seriously by his colleagues? Or, I guess the problem is we need to vote all encumbents out. Why is there not one other congressman who speaks up like he does? He is the lone ranger. He needs some help!
Aunt Judy says:
Getting back to The Death of Common Sense for a moment, the discussion is more about law. We tend to have too many detailed laws and regulations. Maybe the active solution has to start at the state level. I would like to delve into just what our state representatives are doing or what they think they are doing enacting new laws all the time! They should be more concerned with budget issues, etc, and less with making more laws. But that seems to be most of what they do. I do really need to do some research tho to back this up. Again how do we change it? There just aren't folks out there who are really smart and statemanlike who want to run for office. Like it says above:
"Effective government, Howard suggests, is one which attracts the best people and gives them leadership responsibility. But we have created the opposite system, based on defensive formalisms, driving away good people who cannot abide the negativity of the process."