Frequently at meetings conversation will be clamped because somebody uses a word to describe an opposing point of view. Labels can be helpful in conveying ideas of a general nature, but invariably, all groups are not homogeneous. A gentleman at today’s Constitutional workshop said most people are not scholarly ideologues, but they’re just trying to do the right thing. It would be difficult to disagree.

And yet, there is something destructive inherent in certain philosophies. Words like “Socialist” and “Progressive” pertain to an interest in the here and now. These people want to fix problems. They can’t stand to see even one person suffer. This is kind. In the old days, people would reach into their hearts and pockets to offer relief. Now, they turn to government. The argument is that government can forcefully collect a little bit from everybody to solve major problems.

Government, however, is an abstraction representing an abdication of personal power. Turning charity over to government is not a cure-all. It is a call for the creation or extension of a program. The program must be administered. Since the people demand accountability, it must also churn paper and comply with broad-brush rules. The individual caregiver loses time and energy he could put into interacting with his clients, studying up on their conditions, and daydreaming about solutions. In the extreme, he spends his time checking items off a list.

Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is highly-recommended reading. Hazlitt apologizes for belaboring what has been stated ad nauseum and is self-evident to many – and yet is absent in numerous decisions made by policymakers. He basically argues that decisions should evaluate what is best for everybody, what has the best outcome in the long-run, and what second- and nth-order consequences will be significant. Any action taken to legislate on behalf of a special interest group will necessarily deprive another group of equal opportunity. Broad-brush rules necessarily reduce efficiencies and raise prices above market levels. When government is involved in any program, funding an individual could have applied directly to the cause must necessarily go to overhead. The free market, by contrast, is a democracy in which everybody gets to vote many times a day as he exchanges to acquire the goods and services he values.