Bureaucratic Hell

Hell hath no fury like a bureaucracy run amok. A recent article in The Federalist carried the headline: You Can’t Defend ‘Democracy’ And The Administrative State. The topic was SCOTUS review of the ill-conceived and oft-abused Chevron doctrine, which affords almost unlimited deference to bureaucratic regulations where such promulgations were not expressly forbidden by Congress. In effect, Chevron allows bureaucratic fiefdoms to grow almost unchecked, fueled by legislative ambiguity and nurtured through Congressional silence (or complicity). Such behavior simultaneously demonstrates ultra vires powers being assumed by alphabet agencies through unelected technocrats (within the Executive Branch) as well as dereliction of duties and abdication of powers, which are allocated to Congress within the Constitution (and exclusive to the Legislative Branch).

The article states:

What Chevron deference does is incentivize Congress to write vague laws and presidents to abuse their power. It creates instability, as every administration implements its own preferred interpretation of the law. It threatens to further destroy the separation of powers. It was a huge mistake. And, as opposed to most of the left’s hysterics these days, it’s a real threat to ‘democracy.’

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 62:

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Government is, at best, a necessary evil. Government has some success at offering remedy for improper behavior (e.g. traditional crimes, torts, breaches of contract, etc.). In order to be actionable, there should be loss or harm to some other person or party (or to the property of another). Actionable harm should be more than theoretical and more than an offense against one’s delicate sensibilities. Such harms should be demonstrable, material, and proximate to the behavior to be remedied or proscribed.

Government is much less adept at imposing “ideal” behavior, because there is no singular ideal. Even efforts to legislate “morality” are problematic where the objective is to impose ideal behavior as opposed to remedying harm. Laws rarely provide win-win solutions. What is ideal to one may be deemed tyrannical by another. Generally, proponents of government action seek to use the compulsory powers of the state and coercive powers of government so as to force a reluctant party to participate in a relationship or transaction, which the disadvantaged party would not voluntarily participate. The objectives are rent seeking, privilege, and benefit, which are brought through the imposition of costs and sacrifices upon “others.” Government is tasked with choosing “winners” and “losers,” which should not be a prerogative of the state.

Political minions and technocrats crave vicarious power, and they covet the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.

“Democracy” is presented as an ideal; however, a democracy, which is unfettered and unlimited, is in essence unhinged. It is then indistinguishable from mob rule. Democracy is exceedingly overrated. Should one find himself the target of tyranny, it matters little whether the resulting losses and harms, which he is forced to suffer, are at the hands of a single deranged despot or at the behest of a self-serving electoral majority.

The journalist, William Allen White, said of majority rule:

Democracy is an experiment, and the right of the majority to rule is no more inherent than the right of the minority to rule; and unless the majority represents sane, righteous, unselfish public sentiment, it has no inherent right.

Actions, which are routinely unselfish and unflinchingly altruistic, are contrary to the inherent nature of mankind. Like nearly all beings, we have natural inclinations toward self-protection, self-advancement, and self-propagation.

It is dangerous to presume right(eous)ness in the actions of a numerical majority. No collection of naturally flawed beings is suddenly made omniscient, perfectly wise, and unwaveringly just, should they choose to act en masse. There is absolutely nothing about the make-up of an electoral majority, which assures — much less guarantees — that the preferred course is in the long-term best interests of that majority or of the collective as a whole. Of greater concern, that commanded course is almost certainly disadvantageous to a reluctant minority and harmful to disfavored groups and individuals. Collective action often gives rise to groupthink, and it tends to magnify and exacerbate the baser traits of our bestial species.

Proponents are quick to identify “good intentions,” but as to whom? Democracy may be the most dangerous of all forms of government, because its proponents act with a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number. The desired ends of the majority are deemed worthy and noble — if not morally compelled, by the majority itself. Nevertheless, one cannot enjoy the absolutions, which might be offered by hordes of accomplices or even a host of coconspirators.

C.S. Lewis wrote in God in the Dock:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

When any system or philosophy expects or commands persons to act contrary to their perceived self-interests, the resulting policies and programs are destined to failure. In a letter to John Taylor in 1814, John Adams wrote:

Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.

Government’s problem is not in having the wrong persons in the wrong positions. The problem is in demanding of government things, for which the institution is ill-suited and which are contrary to the inherent nature of the beast. Government is not a tool, which engenders cooperation, collaboration, compromise, and consensus. It is an instrument of brute force, whereby an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) seeks to impose its self-serving will upon a reluctant minority (or other disfavored group or individual). There is rarely, if ever, anything more moral or noble in the machinations of the state.

President Gerald Ford repeated the admonition, “A government, which is capable of giving you everything that you want, is similarly capable of taking everything that you have.” An unrestrained state is antithetical to liberty, and an omnipotent government is incompatible with freedom. With every incremental increase in power, liberty wanes and freedoms are eroded. Initially, the sacrifices might be nearly imperceptible. Many, who seek to benefit from government’s largess, may deem the sacrifices worthy and the costs “necessary” (especially when the expectation is that those sacrifices and costs will be borne primarily or exclusively by disfavored “others”). Eventually, the people loose appreciation for and understanding of formerly inalienable rights. They cannot be motivated to protect and defend what they never knew they had.

Rather than attempting to design an omnipotent state, which operates with industrial efficiency, the objective should be to tightly fetter the Leviathan and to limit its powers. Only then can those vast powers be harnessed productively. Only then might those powers be constructive as opposed to being destructive. Should government be made sufficiently impotent, there is no incentive for rent seeking and no motivation to abuse its powers. Once unleashed, however, the beast is unlikely to be returned to its restraints, and as it roams uninhibited, it is certain to sow wanton destruction far and wide.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/23/you-cant-defend-democracy-and-the-administrative-state/