"If" Before "How"

Human nature drives us toward "do something" solutions when we see problems. We also, when something is being done poorly, default to adding rather than subtracting, modifying rather than deleting. These inclinations artificially narrow conversations and subconsciously bound the range of potential solutions or improvements.

Thus, many of us reflexively react away from remedies that are "do less," or "do away with." We forget to look at the possibility that the best answer to a perceived problem is to let it sort itself out naturally. No matter that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has proven time and again to be better than top-down control or central planning, people continue to feel discomfort at letting things sort themselves out naturally.

So, we elect politicians who promise to "do something" more often than who promise to "leave us alone," and we expect every "do something" that didn't work as desired to be followed up with a different "do something," as if government action is the only conceivable remedy to a perceived problem.

Government being government, just about everything it does is done inefficiently, sloppily, and with grift at every step in the process. The grift won't be called grift, of course, because those who wish to empower government delude themselves into thinking that only saints go into public service, but the lure of Other People's Money is inexorable. When the inefficiency and grift are exposed, the natural reflex is to say "OK, let's make it better" rather than question the entire enterprise.

"Father of modern management" Peter Drucker offered this aphorism:

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

Every assessment of a government program should begin* with, "should the government even be doing this?" Only once that question is answered to our satisfaction - and answered apart from rationalizations like "there are good people working on this and it wouldn't be fair for them to lose their jobs" or "it's not a lot of money" or "we don't know why the program exists, so we should be cautious in killing it."

Only after we satisfy ourselves that an expenditure is within the government's range of enumerated powers, producing or likely to produce more good than bad, and better than doing nothing, should we have a discussion about efficiency.

That initial conversation must avoid the nirvana fallacy. There is no utopia - not every problem can be solved.

That initial conversation must avoid the anecdote trap. One unfortunate situation does not justify the broad brush and ham fist of government intervention.

That initial conversation must include the opportunity cost discussion. What tradeoffs come with a proposed policy or expenditure? What do we not* get to do if we do X? Where is the money coming from, and what burden does it put on the nation?

Civilization is, in part, about taming some parts of human nature. We are not wired to live in large groups (see: Dunbar's Number), so we use our rational minds to write rules (see: the Constitution) that enable us to prosper nonetheless. That doesn't neutralize the wiring, though, and our natural instincts sometimes lead us in the wrong direction.

This includes doing something when doing nothing will likely produce a better outcome.

Eternal vigilance.