Complexapathy

Does it seem like everything is extremely complex these days? I am a tech-head, and most days I hardly notice, but when I see my own father struggling with things I consider to be relatively simple – remote controls, cell phones or his PC – it hits me how technical our world has become. This increasing complexity is probably a temporary trend, when it comes to using technology. Overall, the trend is to simplify the user experience. Even home computers are reaching a level of sophistication where they are starting to require less technical know-how. Plug and play is becoming a reality.

Some day we may raise a generation of people who won’t need to know how to operate the knobs of faucet, because the faucets will all turn on and off automatically. A future generation may not learn how to drive cars, because the cars will do all of the driving. These are not concepts of an inconceivable distant future. It is all very likely. Remember that only 15 years ago cell phones were still uncommon, and now you can watch streaming video on full color displays, take pictures and play mp3’s on them. Dick Tracy’s videophone wristwatch can’t be far behind.

Yes our lives will be simple because we will have extremely powerful and complex tools that are so sophisticated and intelligent that using them will require no expertise at all – except for those who build and maintain them. Government is like that too. Its laws and regulations have become so complex that the common person is incapable of grasping their significance without hiring professionals like attorneys and accountants – those who build and maintain our complex social system.

But, as with technology, I am convinced that this trend toward complexity is temporary for government as well. The weight of laws on us is increasingly onerous, forcing people to withdraw from the fringes of our society, and defining ever newer and nearer fringes. This is the natural result of demanding a safe, predictable, controlled society – it tends to eliminate diversity. Those of you who see no end in sight to the "good things" that government can do, please open your eyes and be honest about what your mindset advocates. You are demanding a homogenous society where the standards for normal and acceptable behavior are very narrow.

This is one of Ayn Rand's most powerful and oft quoted lines from Atlas Shrugged:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Persistently narrowing the bounds of acceptable behavior has disturbing and perverse impacts on us. It creates an environment where, much like a minefield, it is safer to fall dutifully in line, step-for-step behind those ahead of you, than to risk running afoul of an overwhelming and incomprehensible system of laws. This highlights the difference between moral conscience and simple obedience. I say "simple", because obedience requires no thinking, soul searching or rational thought. In fact, in an obedient society one does not even need to understand the difference between right and wrong.

At some point, the mountains of rules and regulations will become so restrictive that we can simply throw them away. We will no longer have to worry over the details. Eventually the process becomes amazingly simple, anything that is not explicitly permitted will be forbidden. And don’t struggle to understand what is permitted. The expectation will be simple – fall in line and do what others do.

This is not the future advertised by those who are heralding it. They say they are protecting us and at the same time empowering us. They say that everyone’s contribution must be equally valued, whether doctor or cashier, plumber or garbage collector. It won’t matter if we already have thousands of artists making finger paintings with their own feces – by god, if finger-poop paintings are your passion in life, you must be paid a "living wage" to paint them. This is the "replicator" society that I previously discussed, where everyone can have everything they ever need – that future is just a hair farther fetched than Dick Tracy’s videophone.

Advocates of government controls will talk about all kinds of elaborate rights, rights to things that are only abundant in the most affluent societies today; a right to work; a right to a living wage; a right to health care; a right to housing. They leave out the part where we pay the price for this abundance – that price is obedience. For if we have a right to things produced by other people, those people become slaves, conscripted to fulfill our expanded "rights". Likewise, we are enslaved to them, as they have a right to our labor and products as well. And don’t worry if demand for your finger-poop paintings falls off. If necessary, we will stockpile them – so keep painting!

No, a society that is "simply obedient" has nothing to do with rights. A society founded on real rights is far different from a society encrusted with rules and supposed "guarantees". A society found on rights demands that people think. It expects them to act responsibly. It holds them accountable when they violate the rights of others, instead of wasting time and effort confining them to artificial boundaries and rules. Most of these restrictions are just institutionalized infringements on our liberty and do nothing to promote an accountable citizenry.

You can have a stable but empowered society without oppressively complex regulation. The answer is simplification. Take for example the volumes of law regarding the use of motor vehicles. Most of us have little if any familiarity with the full extent of those laws. So it is ineffective in restraining behavior. People do just as I have described. They do whatever they see others are getting away with. They observe each other – they see how far one can stray from the beaten path before hitting a land mine.

It all boils down to enforcement. Enforcement is costly in more than just financial ways, though technology is making it more affordable every day. So instead of focusing on real criminal elements – real threats to our safety – law enforcement largely spends its time making examples of people who are technically in violation of statutes and otherwise present no particular danger to anyone. This serves the dual function of funding the enforcement and creating a visually intimidating spectacle on our roadsides.

Make no mistake. No one is learning the laws out there. The public learns only what they can get away with. That is inevitable in an overly complex social system. It all depends on our fear and on the judgement of police to selectively enforce the laws. Sure, even if the public doesn’t know all of the laws, laws act as a convenient framework for the police to use – but that’s a cop out (sorry) that relieves the police of the more difficult task of distinguishing safe behavior from unsafe behavior. We can continue the pathetic cat and mouse game where law enforcement tags you out when it catches you crossing the myriad technical boundaries. Or, we can admit that we can’t hold people to the letter of the law, and that we rely almost completely on the judgement of the police to decide who will be made into examples. If order hinges on the judgement of law enforcement, doesn’t it make sense to build a system around that key fact?

If so, then we only need one rule on the roads – a person may not operate a vehicle carelessly or recklessly. Now, I admit (for you legal eagles ready to chop me up – this is my "disclaimer") that I am oversimplifying somewhat for clarity and effect, but not by much. With this approach, roadway regulations would become only guidelines and advisories. This simplified approach honestly deals with the limits of law enforcement. It re-tasks the police to spend their effort singling out those who demonstrate plausible threats to the public. Such threats should be dealt with decisively, harshly and without compromise.

This approach closes loopholes. For example we would not need specific laws prohibiting driving while using cell phones or eating or putting on make-up. The truth is that some people can safely use mobile communications and perform other activities while maintaining command of their vehicles – others cannot. For example, the police and trucking communities have been using "hands on" mobile communications for decades without much complaint. We should target drivers who are, for whatever reason, driving erratically or in an unsafe manner. No matter how equal we all are in eyes of the law, we are not equal in terms of alertness, focus, strength, aptitude and eye/hand coordination. We gain nothing by arbitrarily punishing those who use their phones safely, just because so many people can’t, won’t or don’t.

It is simple. Instead of a fearful and marginally obedient society, we could create a responsible population of drivers, drivers who understand that protecting everyone’s safety is the first and only rule.

______________________________

There is a big collection of Rand’s quotes at WikiQuote, though they failed to source this particular quote back to Atlas Shrugged.