Village Cafe A Buffet of Ideas

Howdy neighbor, welcome to the Village Café. I’m the busboy striving to make your visit memorable. Our buffet offers dishes attractive to those who believe in wholesome lives. We favor recipes fit for changing times while respecting the ingredients Mama used to use.

You identify with many villages; local, regional, federal and international. Every village has one of our cafés. The meals in each café reflect the prevailing views in the village. Our goal is to build a common menu where every villager, in every corner of the world, can enter any Village Café and know the buffet will feature individual responsibility, passion, goodwill and humour; with seasoning appropriate to the village.

Individuals may enter a Village Café with ideas not fully integrated with core villagers’ conceptions. These guests will find patrons with similar conceptions around the outer areas of the café. Through time, and interaction, the core will adapt to the emerging conceptions and the outliers will gain integration with the core values. This dynamic will endure through generations. The process will lead to stability with enough flexibility to accommodate consensus; yielding serenity with room to adapt.

It is easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague. C.S. Peirce (1839-1914); Collected Papers, 4, 237

I trust you won’t find this book sufficiently vague. Bon appetit.

Chapter 2 The Taker-Maker

Each village develops an equilibrium. Pioneer and frontier villages often exhibit individual responsibility and little government involvement. As villages mature, they take on more infrastructure and bureaucracy. Our natural tendencies allow erosion of individual responsibility because we support the underdog and stifle the achiever. Our system of representative government, combined with tolerance for interference by authorities, entrenches malignant laws, systems, and polices.

We grew up with teeter-totters. We discovered modest adjustments in the distance from the pivot point would adjust the balance to equilibrium. Let's change the name of the teeter-totter to taker-maker. Imagine physical stops at the ends of the taker-maker. These stops are populated by the truly needy on the taker end, and the cream of productive society on the maker end. There’s a small percentage of truly needy which we’re prepared to support. This percentage does not change much over time. On the other end, are a few individuals who will thrive no matter how many hurdles and inequities we hurl in their paths. Inhibiting these folks is a tragedy affecting them and others who would benefit from their initiatives.

In between the two extremes is a multitude; maybe 95% of the population. This group, like a puddle of mercury, nestles up against the taker end of the taker-maker. We’ve allowed the taker end to be heavier than the maker end over the last sixty years. This includes whole generations who’ve experienced welfare as their only way of life. It includes baby boomers who started on a kinder, gentler path and created an inept system that will fail as we add weight to the taker end. How do we adjust the pivot point so more villagers trend toward the maker end? We supplement every village buffet with individual responsibility and purge collective abuse of force.

Moises Naim published the book, The End of Power, in 2013. His book explains many of the concepts underpinning the buffet of ideas in the Village Café. Moises Naim articulates four categories of power: muscle, code, pitch, and reward. Muscle involves the actual or potential use of force. Code involves moral and traditional obligations. Pitch involves persuasion and appeals to preference. Reward provides inducements in exchange for compliance. In my perspective, government should be loath to exercise muscle and reward because these activities violate the rights and freedoms of individuals. My buffet of ideas illustrates how each society can rely upon code and pitch to set the environment for villagers to use individual responsibility in their daily activities.

The End of Power goes on to identify three trends which are eroding traditional power structures. The more trend notices more people, countries, cities, political parties, armies, preachers, criminals, information, ... The mobility trend sees individuals moving from rural to urban, from state to state, and from country to country. The mentality trend indicates individuals are expecting better results with less corruption. For the most part, the end of power is exhilarating; but there are downsides. Dissidents, criminals, and terrorists can exploit the cracks in traditional power just as wholesome folks can benefit from the erosion of power. New power blocks are emerging in the form of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and the like. I expect more individual responsibility will equip villagers with better tools to thwart criminals and mega service providers. Think of the ingenuity of explorers, scouts, detectives, and inventors who use their skills to solve challenges. Most of us can sharpen our senses merely by being expected to do so.

Our expectations will change when alternatives to individual responsibility are significantly below the levels capable folks will choose.

Once we’ve dealt with the masses, we’re willing, and able, to provide for the truly needy.

Chapter 3 In The Public Interest

Have you noticed the table cloths in many restaurants? They are white and immaculate. They’re made from a fabric called In the public interest. When I ask why the table cloths are so popular, individuals shrug and say, It feels right. When I persist, most show their level of concern by expanding their answer, It just feels right in this restaurant. Still curious, I looked up the components used to manufacture the fabric. The ingredients include suffocating rules, political correctness, extreme process, and persecution of individuals. I wonder why fairness advocates remain silent. The authorities know the fabric kills individual responsibility but individual responsibility is seen as the enemy; so they impose dangerous table cloths to cover the stains and scars on every possible table.

The transparent table cloths in Village Cafés are made from freedom fabric: a composite of the assumptions people have thrown in the recycle bin as they realize the fibers are too weak to sustain a meaningful life. The fibers are bonded by a natural resin (villagers pronounce it ‘reason’). Villagers appreciate seeing the wood grain, stains, and scars through the table cloth. They can make judgments on the basis of what they see.

Public interest is evoked, in myriad situations, with lack of clarity. Can public interest be articulated in a meaningful way? Can we judge whether a particular action is beneficial enough to enforce the action?

A decision tree should yield results in tune with my perception of the public interest.

Does the action integrate expectations with reality?

If yes, proceed to the next decision. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to the next question. If no, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action follow the rule of law?

If yes, proceed to the next decision. If no, ask if the law is wrong? If the law is wrong, change the law. If the law is not wrong, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action protect every individual’s right to act independently as long as the individual does not initiate force?

If yes, proceed to the next question. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to the next question. If no, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action protect diversity?

If yes, proceed to the next question. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to the next question. If no, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action protect from discrimination?

If yes, proceed to the next question. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to the next question. If no, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action protect from concentration of power?

If yes, proceed to the next question. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to the next question. If no, do not allow the proposed action to proceed.

Does the action have the support of a majority of the public who will pay any public cost of implementation equally?

If yes, proceed to implement the action. If no, ask if there is a compelling reason to impose the action. If yes, articulate the compelling reason and proceed to implement the action.

Let’s apply the decision tree to a specific situation. Consider the widespread planting of stop signs at the intersections of the world. Are stop signs in the public interest? Have you pondered whether any stop sign is in the public interest? What does the decision tree yield?

Does the action integrate expectations with reality?

No, the stop sign is expected to make the intersection safer but it doesn’t integrate with reality. When traffic is heavy; it slows flow. When traffic is lighter, it frustrates drivers. When traffic is light, it’s ridiculous. There are no circumstances where observance of a stop sign will yield better safety or traffic flow than observance of a yield sign. There are thousands of situations where the yield sign will be safer than the stop sign. This assumes all pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers follow the signs. If they don’t, the signs aren’t the problem.

Does the imposition of stop signs follow the rule of law?

Yes, proceed to the next decision.

Does the stop sign protect the individual’s right to act independently as long as the individual does not initiate force?

No. Is there is a compelling reason to impose the action. Advocates insist the stop sign is necessary to prevent accidents but this isn’t true. Accidents are prevented when individuals safely negotiate the intersection. Is there a better signal to help individuals enter the intersection safely? Would the yield sign provide a better signal? Yes, the yield signal will always do what the stop sign will do. Plus, it integrates better with individual responsibility because it informs the individual to be alert to other individuals with the right of way without forcing the individual to stop unless necessary.

Does the stop sign protect diversity?

No, it’s the antithesis of diversity. It forces every individual to stop, not for safety but to obey the law, even though visibility guarantees no other individual could be endangered by proceeding into the intersection.

Does the stop sign protect from discrimination?

You might see the stop sign as treating every individual the same. This could be viewed as complete lack of discrimination. But, placing a strait jacket on every individual in pursuit of an indiscriminate rule is ludicrous. No, the stop sign does not protect any individual from meaningful discrimination.

Does the stop sign protect from concentration of power?

No; it concentrates the power in one, or a very few individuals, who have the authority to dictate the installation of the stop sign. Once that decision is carried out, every individual is obligated to stop or break the law, day in, day out. Is this concentration of power necessary? I think not. In fact, it’s an example of the extreme impositions caused by lack of clarity concerning the public interest.

Does the stop sign have the support of a majority of the public who will pay any public cost of implementation equally?

This consideration is neutral because the cost of installing a stop sign should be equal to the cost of installing a yield sign.

The methodical study of a suggested course of action should yield better public interest decisions. There is ongoing risk bureaucrats have a