I haven’t read the book, Mitch, but I’m confused by the mixed electrical analogy.

In a short circuit, power bypasses the intended use and, in the case of a grounded fault, potentially drains as much energy as possible from its supply. (Circuit breakers detect a short circuit or ground from this sudden surge of power. Incidentally, they only “trip” to keep from overheating the wires, not to save the hapless homeowner.)

In an open circuit, nothing happens good or bad — there is simply energy stored or potential. There’s no current (amperage) in an open circuit, just a voltage — like the opposite sides of a light switch.

If the electrical analogy refers to the power of government, then the open circuit may be desireable. When government interferes in the function of the economy, there is a rush of governmental energy that bypasses appropriate usages and channels, unleashes destructive forces along its path, and drains resources from other uses legitimate or not. At least, if it goes far enough.

On the other hand, if the writer was thinking of “human energy” rather than the power of government, an open circuit implies no energy flow, and therefore no useful result. So which was it, Mitch?