"Solutions"

The world is full of problems, but more and more I notice it is also full of "solutions."  These "solutions" are people's grand schemes for handling some real or imagined problem.  I say grand because they are almost always big, gaudy solutions.  People like to tell them around the dinner table or while sipping on a latte at Starbucks.  Almost always these "solutions" are short sighted, foolishly stupid, or even downright dangerous.

The proposals come from people who never seem to ask themselves these four questions:

1. Is the problem well defined?
2. Is your solution thoughtful?
3. Is your solution practical?
4. Is your solution consistent?

If you want to solve a problem, it must be a specific problem.  Symptoms are not problems.  Corollaries are not the right problems.  If you want to solve a problem you must think carefully on the solution.  You must understand the causes, the sources, any cascading problems, consequences that could occur with your proposed solution, you have to think of failure, and how to respond.  If you want to solve a problem, you must be pragmatic.  What are the costs, in time, labor, capital?  Do you have the time?  Can you gather the labor?  Do you have that money?  Finally, if you want to solve a problem you should be consistent across your entire narrative.  That is, your solution should work with every solution you've proposed, and not cause other problems that you will have to "solve" again.

Take drug use for example.  The problem is well defined. People are use dangerous, mind-altering drugs. The cascading problems are well known, ranging from mental issues such as loss of concentration to impairment while driving, to outright criminality.  The big government solution was the "War on Drugs."  But is this solution thoughtful?  Did our government attempt to understand the cause of drug use - the reason people turn to drugs?  Did they consider the consequences of caging people for their addiction?  Did they think of how to respond to the failure of their solution?  Clearly not.  Government talks about the "War on Drugs" as if drug dealers are forcibly injecting their helpless victims with heroin.  Only in their view the victims are criminals too.  They don't understand the root causes of drug use.  They don't understand the consequences of putting non-violent people in jails.  They don't even understand that their program has failed, let alone what to do in case of such failure.  If they are forced to see their failure, it is only seen as a reason to increase their funding.  They've never considered the great cost of this program.   Is the Drug War consistent with the American narrative?  No!  Resoundingly.  The Constitution gives no authority to punish people for vices.  It gives no authority to criminalize the personal behavior of individuals in private settings.  The drug war was not created by Constitutional Amendment, as was prohibition (which also failed).  It is not consistent with freedom.

This is just one example.  The reason I wanted to write about this today is that earlier I read a suggestion that we erect an electrified border fence, with armed soldiers every 500 yards along the fence, "in order to  keep out the drug dealers and illegal immigrants."  Clearly his "solution" is aimed at two different problems - drug use and illegal immigration.  It is also neither thoughtful or practical.  For reasons that should be obvious to everyone.  This "solution" was posted on a pro-Second Amendment website.  As such it is horribly inconsistent.  The idea that a group that by rights ought to understand the true purpose of the Second Amendment - to protect our final defense against a government turned tyranny, would, at the same time propose building an "iron curtain" around our own country is ludicrous. 

Think people!  You are capable of it.  You just need to do it.  Cast aside reactive emotion and ask yourself:

1. Is the problem well defined?
2. Is your solution thoughtful?
3. Is your solution practical?
4. Is your solution consistent?