You Can't Fix Stupid. Read online

laws such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act and the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) only state the protection of the people against any unfairness from the government and from the governed society. All men (mankind) are created equal and have equal inalienable rights under the law. That is, under the law everyone is treated equally. But nowhere does it state that the government is responsible for making everyone equal. For example, the government has the responsibility to see to it that a person has an equal right to an education (they cannot be barred from a college because of their race, age or gender), but government does not have the right to promote an equal education (that is, they cannot be afford an education opportunity to someone just because of their race, age of gender) in an attempt to make an equally educated person; this would favor one individual over another individual. This is similar to the Constitution’s stance on religion. The government believes that religion was an integral part of the governed and treated all religions equally; the government does not have the right to promote one religion over another.

  Unfortunately government has lost sight of this distinction between a “right” and “privilege” and it has cost us dearly. Today, too many laws have been created which mistakenly made something a "right" when it really should only have been a "privilege." Government went from treating all people equally to trying to make all people equal. This has resulted into the quagmire of laws and a stagnation within the government that prevents it from effectively ruling its citizens or even to accomplish some of the most basic governmental tasks. For example, almost any new governmental project which could benefit the community cannot be built without inordinate delays and costs because everything from “concerned citizens for crickets” to “competing contractors” have a "right" to protest the process, even a the expense of all others who would benefit from the project, in the name of equality and individual rights. And there are no limits as to how long or how many obstacles can be thrown into its path because “privileges” which have mutated into “rights” transformed themselves into procedural and absolute laws. Now, it becomes not the cost versus benefit of the project that is being evaluated, it is whether the procedure preserves the “rights” of anyone who could be remotely affected, potentially making them not “equal.” even if they were not equal to begin with! And lawyers are more than willing, for a fee of course, to advocate someone’s “right” – since their privilege has now been made a right, a designation of a law, and thus afforded the protection as a “right.”

  Laws likes “rights” are absolute, while on the other hand “privileges” are discretional and require judgment. Judgment is very effective and surprisingly equitable when administrating a “privilege.” For the most part, it takes judgment to govern people equitably; not absolute laws. There are simply too many variables, too many unique conditions for any single law or even a set of laws to govern effectively or equitably for all, in all situations. And, when an exception does arise in a situation, the natural reaction for lawmakers is to enact even more laws, hoping to cover those exceptions or “loopholes” – which only creates more exceptions, or conflicting regulations, or worst more loopholes and not surprisingly, more work and fees for lawyers. It becomes self-generating, like a snowball rolling down hill – it only keeps gets bigger. To stop it, the government needs to re-evaluate most of its laws and regulations and eliminating as many as possible and relegating them back to privileges which are simpler to define and more flexible to administer. The government needs to hire “anti-lawyers” to undo what the lawyers have done to this country.

  Thus, except for a few basic, inalienable “rights”, most governing regulations should be nothing more than recommended guidelines, goals or principles which identify the objectives that most would consider as highly desirable results. The results should be ones which are beneficial to as many individuals and as pragmatically possible and balanced relative to other community beneficial goals. The interpretation and the level of enforcement of those principles are then left in the hands of the governing authority, and at the lowest level possible. For example, at one time park rangers were able to keep a list of all “park rules” in there shirt pocket. They were simple rules, logical rules, and practical rules – such as do not harm the wildlife, don’t litter and don’t start forest fires. It was the park ranger who made the interpretation as to what constituted an infraction and what the appropriate action or fine should be for the offense. Now imagine the complexity of trying to write a comprehensive manual identifying all the wildlife situations in the park, and what is meant by terms “harm”, or “litter” or “fire” and what is an appropriate penalty for each offense. Is driving off the pavement because you swerved to avoid hitting a bear grounds for harming the foliage? The government in its attempt to “be fair” and remove the power of judgment from the park ranger developed a myriad of regulations and procedures to identify what constitutes park violations and what fines should be administered for each offense in every conceivable situation. As you can imagine, the permutations are mind boggling. The result: the number of manuals a park ranger would need to carry around with him to know what to do in each situation would require a small truck. Meanwhile, the excessive regulations have all but declawed the authority of the Park Ranger to make “on-the-site” judgment call, let alone to enforce the necessary action to remedy the situation all in the fear that someone could argue their right was violated and they may hire a lawyer to find some strange regulation which probably was not written for that situation in order to find a means to circumvent the law. Imagine what happens then when you elevate this procedural nightmare up to the level of the FDA, EPA or the SEC; a nightmare of convoluted regulations now exceeding 100 million words! No one can know it all, let alone properly enforce it. And just look at the performance of those agencies. Do you really think all that legislation is working effectively?

  Less is More

  Today, we are faced with a variety of divisive issues today ranging from abortion to gay marriage, from gun control to use of recreational drugs, from illegal immigration to required military service, from taxation to unemployment compensation. These issues unfortunately segregate people into various political and religious institutions whose only agenda seems to be not only trying to protect themselves but to enforce their viewpoint upon each other, even at their own expense, all under the guise of “equality and individual rights.” These differences are creating a quagmire of policies within this country, a stalemate in our legislative bodies, a collapse of social and economic order and if unchecked, eventually hatred and violence among our citizens and possibly even against those who govern them. If only they could be enlightened to see that there are solutions which are not focused on equality and rights yet yield better quality of life and surprisingly better equality and rights for everyone.

  The consequent of these factions is that all of us are worse off under our complex rules (rights) than had we simply adhered to some simple rules (privileges). Without understanding this basic premise the remaining ideas presented below will simply fall upon deaf ears. In the remaining sections, specific topics are addressed where a simple solution is applied to a complex problem look past issues of equality and individual rights. If the reasoning is sound, then shouldn’t the solution pursued? So read the suggested simple solutions to complex problems presented herein, their benefits and their rationale, and then you decide. Would not most of us really be better off using simple solutions when it comes to some of our more complex problems and brush aside some of our misconceptions of equality and individual rights? Would we all not be better off if we adopt the premise that the government should me minimalistic, opting for a stating a privilege, a guideline, or even a set of goals before the government ever considers enacting yet another fixed and mandatory law? Let ingenuity and in the field judgment derive the best solution for each situation, not a rigid law. Let authorities at the lowest level make judgment calls as to what is f
air, expedient and cost effective. We allow an umpire to call a ball game as he sees it; why not let a Park Ranger or a FDA official do the same?

  Simple versus Complex

  It has been said that “For every complex problem there is a simple solution – and it is wrong!” There is some truth in that statement; it depends more upon how you phrase the problem than the actual solution. For example, if you say “a simple solution to reducing crime is…, or a simple solution to cancer is to … [fill in the blank]”; no matter what the answer, it is probably wrong because the problems are so complex they cannot possibly be solved with a single silver bullet answer. However, there are a number of seemingly complex problems to which there is a simple solution if you are willing to except the premise that the “solution” is obtained when the typical result is very close to the optimum level and is obtained by the most cost effective means.

  Obviously, when anyone applies a simple solution to a