Ever drive down a two lane road, one out in the back country, with nothing in the way of a speed limit and nothing but a line of paint dividing you from oncoming cars that are going just as fast as you are? Ever consider what might happen if you simply twitched the steering wheel to the left at the wrong moment? I’d speculate that most of us have had that stray thought on at least one occasion, even though we’d obviously never do it. Just as we’d never do it, never commit an act so destructive and senseless, we trust that our fellow drivers, those coming in the other direction at a relative speed north of a hundred miles an hour, would never do such a thing either.
In extending that trust to our fellow drivers, we presume a few things and rely on a few other things. We trust that those driving on public roads are competent to do so. We trust that the vehicles they drive are functional enough to be properly controlled by their drivers. While we rely on the government to administer competency tests to drivers, to establish requirements for vehicles that are permitted access to public roads, and to build, mark and maintain the roads in a manner that promotes trust, the government’s involvement does not supplant the trust we extend to our fellow drivers. Ultimately, it does boil down to expecting and trusting that the driver in the car on the other side of the double yellow line doesn’t twitch his steering wheel to the left at the worst possible moment.
We don’t typically think of such things when the subject of trust arises. There’s not much reason for worry, because we have driven countless miles and witnessed a society that has driven countless miles without this sort of destructive action happening with remotely a degree of frequency that would put it on our conscious radars. A slightly less off-the-radar level of trust is extended to our fellow commuters when we stand at a train station or a bus stop, or when crossing a signalized street. We don’t expect someone to act destructively, but many of us have at least a glimmer of alertness for the presence of a crazy person who might do us harm. And, yes, it would most likely be a crazy person, i.e. someone who is functioning well outside the normal bounds of rational behavior, who would do such a thing.
Our society is anchored in expectations of behavior in these and countless other situations, and we constantly extend trust to our fellow humans as we live our daily lives. We never even think about all the times we extend trust to those whose paths directly intersect ours. We trust them to act rationally, in their own best interests, when the peril we ourselves face if they don’t is significant. A driver that turns into our lane at highway speed will likely kill us. A commuter that shoves us onto the tracks in front of a moving train will also likely kill us. A barista who puts arsenic in our morning coffee will likely kill us We know that this sort of thing doesn’t happen, not only because the consequences the other driver or commuter or barista faces are dire, but because the act itself is illogical, irrational and psychopathic. We expect our fellow members of society to act sanely and in their own best interests, just as they expect us to do the same. Overwhelmingly, it works.
Curiously, though, there are many among us who don’t trust their fellow members of society in matters where personal peril is slim to nonexistent. So many laws, so much of what government does, is rooted in not trusting the members of society to live their lives and act in their own best interests. We’re debarred from eating, drinking, smoking or otherwise ingesting what we want. We’re required to pass tests, get licenses and/or get various forms of permission to do all sorts of things that either don’t affect anyone else or are agreed to by those they do affect, even without government permissions. We’re not trusted to look after our own best interests by people who are utterly unaffected by our actions. These distrusters are the folks who elect big-government politicians. They’re the ones who demand more regulations, more restrictions, more licensing and more permitting. They seek to regulate behavior, restrict what we do with our selves and with people who wish to interact with us. They interfere in our arrangements, our contracts, our agreements and our interactions. They don’t trust us, even though the fact that we manage to live safe and productive lives justifies trust.
Certainly, there are outliers. There are people who will act badly in their dealings with others, and there are people who will do harm to themselves. These folks manage to do so despite efforts to stop them, and they can suffer consequences for their bad acts. Yet, we as individuals don’t allow the existence of a few outliers to dictate our interactions with everyone. We don’t assume that everyone on the subway platform is looking to push us in front of a train. We act prudently, but we don’t accuse, presume or demand that people stay far away from us. We also don’t figure that every car coming at us on the two lane road is looking to turn into our lane at the last minute. We pay attention, but our default mindset is that they’ll act normally. We don’t presume that our morning coffee is poisoned. We don’t let the outliers define the norm.
Outliers defining the norm is, however, exactly what those with statist tendencies seek to do. They insist that people in general can’t be trusted to look after their own interests by singling out those who’ve made mistakes or done harm to themselves and ignoring those who have managed, somehow, to run their own lives just fine. They hold to this insistence even when they themselves are at negligible risk from those who might make mistakes. They claim they’re helping and protecting, but their help and protection gets in the way of people who neither need nor want it. They do all they do because they simply don’t trust the rest of us.
What’s even more curious, and quite disheartening, is that they invest their trust in people who SHOULDN’T be trusted i.e. politicians. History is littered with examples of politicians who’ve lied, who’ve cheated, who’ve enriched themselves through both illegal and legal-but-underhanded means, who’ve broken promises, who’ve reneged on pledges, and who’ve acted in total contradiction to the personas they presented to the voters. Government, itself an aggregate of people, is so consistently inefficient, counterproductive, dysfunctional and inscrutable that entire bodies of humor and sarcasm about government are entwined in our thoughts and lives. Yet despite all its failures, despite all its broken promises, despite its incredibly dismal track record, our statist friends default to trusting the government. Given the enormous power government has over all our lives, that trust is granted in a situation where distrust is wholly justified.
Thus, we have a situation where those who shouldn’t be trusted are trusted and those who warrant trust aren’t trusted. It is curious, and in being curious it leads to speculation as to possible underlying causes. One that comes to mind is paternalism. If we consider that our statist friends don’t embrace the premise of equality that is the basis of our system of government, if we imagine they think that there are members of society that aren’t capable of self-management, then we can understand their lack of trust. Another is laziness. Self-reliance and self-management take a degree of effort, more than it takes to simply depend on others to do the foundation work for the myriad decisions we each make in our lives. It’s easier to have the government control what you’re allowed to eat and drink than to figure it out for yourself. Of course, that laziness ends up imposing on everyone else, because offloading personal responsibility onto the government results in blanket, not personalized, mandates and restrictions, so the laziness is inextricably entwined with selfishness. Finally, there’s delusion. How else to describe the continued trust in government, when the entirety of human history has made the case that government shouldn’t be trusted?
Talk to liberals about their beliefs and you’ll find some fundamental distrust. That distrust typically includes Big Business and conservative government. The former is a reason they want and trust liberal government, and the latter is a reason they want and trust liberal government. Drill down further, and you’ll find that they also distrust their fellows in certain ways. Individuals can’t be trusted to negotiate their terms of employment, as but one example.
Talk to conservatives about their beliefs and you’ll find some fundamental distrust. That distrust typically includes Big Labor and liberal government. The former is a reason they want and trust conservative government, and the latter is a reason they want and trust conservative government. Drill down further, and you’ll find they also distrust their fellows in certain ways. Individuals can’t be trusted to consume certain substances, as but one example.
Talk to libertarians about their beliefs and you’ll find some fundamental distrust. That distrust typically includes most of what government does. Libertarians are less likely to distinguish between good government and bad government, and distrust government no matter who’s running things. They are more likely to trust their fellows to manage their own lives, reserving their distrust for situations where their fellows’ actions put them at peril.
Which is most logical? Who has chosen best when it comes to trust and distrust? Is trusting one’s fellow man to see to himself while fundamentally distrusting government the most rational world view? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters