Since our founding there has been debate over decentralizing decision making contrasted with a more consolidated approach. For example, Alexander Hamilton supported centralized banking while there were the Anti-Federalist who insisted that the 10th Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights which allowed the states to maintain powers not given to the Federal Government. Philosophical variances regarding economics at that time still exist today. In the founder’s time there were mercantilists who supported government intervention to protect industries through tariffs and subsidies while classical liberals insisted on a limited government role in the economy. Last century and even now an economic approach named after John Maynard Keynes aims to adjust public expenditures and taxation to achieve optimal employment, wage, and inflation levels. The Supply Side approach on the other hand seeks optimal economic performance by minimizing taxes, public expenditures, and business regulations as much as possible. A similar theme can be seen with gun ownership. Some see wide access to firearms as a deterrent to various threats whereas others see danger in individual gun ownership and believe society is safer with government officials maintaining guns whom they deem experts.
From a big picture, we might ask what benefits society the most- one that employs a more decentralized or centralized approach? The decentralized approach finds its roots in self-governance, individual liberty, and individual worth. Free market economists insist that the economy overall performs best when individuals freely control their resources seeing that they best determine their needs. They also recognize the Public Choice Theory which states that people will always do what is in their best interest regardless of their position and environment. They recognize the predicament that comes with public sector settings. For example, take situations when people spend other people’s money on themselves and when people spend other people’s money on other people. These decisions are often politically driven and lead to much waste, fraud, and abuse. This explains why free market economists strongly advocate for minimal public expenditures and taxation.
The flaw of the centralized approach is that power is consolidated in the hands of a few who are not impacted or held accountable for the decrees and regulations they impose. The planners seldom see the cause and effect of their decisions in contrast to the individuals/businesses who can better gauge outcomes of measures taken as they are involved with day to day operations of their endeavors. Not only that, individuals and businesses are subject to the profit and loss mechanism which gives them incentive to profit and monitor costs thus holding them accountable for how they manage their affairs.
Often during a crisis like the one we are experiencing here in 2020 with COVID-19 the public is convinced we must sacrifice liberty for safety. Central planners have suspended our rights leading to business closures which people have frequented for many years such as two popular restaurants in my area, the Milton Inn and the Silver Spring Mining Company. The experts at the top have decided which businesses are essential and are leaving many to scratch their heads wondering why grocery stores and big box stores can remain open when hair style and nail saloons cannot. Somehow these experts at the top can also determine how many people can be in church at a time.
While, elected officials are finally allowing societal operations to ‘open’ there is still a lesson to be learned. For one, in a free society which embraces property rights, the basis for free enterprise, individuals should not need permission to resume their operations, not that anyone had authority to halt them in the first place.
If what I said about decentralization is true, there is no reason that individual ingenuity could not have applied in this situation resulting in extraordinarily less economic harm and even provided better solutions to address the health matters. First, let us go back to the essential premise of individualism that a person left to their own devices will do what is in their best interest. That may sound selfish but there have been many cautious people during this epidemic while acting in their best interest who would have stayed home as much as they could and worn masks regardless of state orders. Not only that, many employers who do not want to bear the cost of sick employees would have permitted work from home regardless of a lockdown.
Church leaders knowing their congregation can devise strategize to meet the needs of their congregants and determine meeting times and places to gather. Knowing that exercise is great for all around physical condition and the immune system people would still have gone to the gym out of self interest or stayed home out of self-interest. Out of self interest and a desire to maintain their membership rolls, gym facilities would have taken extra steps to clean and sanitize or not even open out of self-interest.
With a self-interest to prevent or obtain a cure for COVID a demand would arise thus creating incentive to meet public needs out of self-interest. Without regulation and red tape getting in the way of treatment or price controls providers will have greater ease in getting their treatment to the marketplace and the opportunity to reinvest in additional treatment. With ever existing demand, new competitors would enter the market providing additional and possibly better treatment at lower cost out of self-interest.
At the outset of the epidemic one argument for the shutdown was that the hospitals would not be able to handle all the sick patients. This notion is completely pessimistic and denies human potential and essentially served as a cap on private ingenuity in terms of meeting healthcare needs. For one thing, outdoor medical facilities were serving patients in different parts of the country including one in Central Park as seen during the Franklin Graham Easter special. Had it not been for the lockdown we can only imagine the private solutions that would have been utilized to meet the needs of our local community and our nation. We have always been a benevolent people which further convinces me that this concern could have been dealt with privately in an effective manner.
There is an old saying that if you want to be free to do whatever you want; you are also free to bear any consequences that come with your actions. Only half of that applies to center planners as they will continue to exercise authority regardless of their action’s consequences. When decision making is spread out amongst individuals who are subjected to both sides of that coin solutions are implemented that maximize society’s needs as there is a keen awareness of how to value and utilize resources.
In His Image 