Changing Government by Stepping, Phasing, or Doing
To conserve all that’s best and to bring more that’s better, immediately remove all that’s second best.
April 23, 2021
Freedom is increased when a local, state, or national government person:
Each use of each type of limit will change a government.
Thoughtful people have considered how to accomplish changes in governments and have advocated quite-different approaches.
Most often, a politician accomplishes a change by stepping.
He suggests some small step, testing the water. He might leak an idea to media people. He might mention a possible change on Twitter. He might draft a bill. If the initial reaction is favorable, if it goes viral, he jumps in.
If this small step goes to completion, then most likely the sponsoring politician is done. For the rest of his career he will claim that he solved a problem. He needn’t take even one more risk, especially in the same policy area. The next small step in this policy area, if there is a next step, can be taken by a politician who has a greater need for cred.
Stepping may be what’s happening with many recently-declared sanctuaries that support the Constitution in narrow areas.
Elected politicians have declared sanctuaries for the Second Amendment in 37% of all counties , sanctuaries for the unborn , and sanctuaries either broadly from COVID restrictions  or more narrowly through sanctuaries for the First Amendment , for business , from health mandates , or from vaccine mandates .
Many of these sanctuaries are merely declared but aren’t secured by statutes. Most that have statutes create rules that apply to the enacting jurisdiction’s government people but not to other jurisdictions’ government people and not to nongovernment people. For example, some statutes authorize that the enacting jurisdiction’s people arrest other jurisdictions’ people, but don’t enable the enacting jurisdiction’s people to prosecute, convict, and punish the other jurisdictions’ people.
If these sanctuaries are going to become more secure, there’s no public evidence of how. There’s no timetable, planned sequence of actions, or visible ongoing action to bring larger change, by phasing.
Sometimes, an activist or media person advocates change by phasing.
Phasing can be planned but unscheduled:
Phasing can be planned and scheduled:
Phasing can be unplanned:
Sometimes, an activist, media person, or politician advocates or accomplishes a change by doing.
The change is to be fast and large.
Morally, if the change will secure at least one person’s life, liberty, or property, fast and large change is the only good change. Legally, if the change is legally mandated, fast and large change is the only allowed change. Pragmatically, fast and large change is always best.
If change is for the better, fast and large change brings positive benefits and new winners. This creates a new balance of political power, which settles into a new, better equilibrium state.
For instance after the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly-independent national governments tried changing for the better at different speeds and in different amounts, as shown in the figure.
Figure. After the Berlin Wall was torn down, fast change brought good results fast, and the progress kept up , .
The figure summarizes the conditions experienced over a duration of 25 years—a generation. In countries where change was fast and large, economic freedom quickly approached 100% and stayed there for a generation, with no end in sight. In countries where change was delayed, economic freedom was lost for years. In countries where change was slow or stopped, economic freedom was lost for a generation, with no end in sight.
Delayed, slow, or stopped change held economic freedom down to significantly below the potential. Fast and large change lifted economic freedom up to reach the full potential.
Fast and large change is also better if change is for the worse initially. Fast and large change creates fast and large harm, which creates fast and large pushback that not only overturns the initial change but also brings change for the better very quickly.
Fast and large change is always the best approach to, in the end, achieve positive change.
So then to conserve all that’s best and to bring more that’s better, what’s needed is to remove all that’s second best, using the approach that’s the best:
James Anthony is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers and has written articles in The Federalist, Foundation for Economic Education, American Thinker, American Greatness, and rConstitution.us. Mr. Anthony is an experienced chemical engineer with a master’s in mechanical engineering.