By Stephen L. Hall
It is oft said that form follows function, which can mean various things, but essentially that the shape of things follows the purpose they are designed to accomplish. Engineering, architecture, and manufacturers tend towards similar designs because they are more practical and pragmatic for the purpose.
E.g., Cars have four wheels rather than three because it is more stable in a turn, though three wheel cars keep being attempted. Early bicycles had one large wheel and a second much smaller wheel because they were direct drive vehicles, i.e. the pedals turned the wheels rather than a chain and sprocket system, but eventually two equal sized wheels were found to be more practical.
I would add to this saying that form follows function with a corollary that usage follows form, meaning that the manner in which anything is used and employed flows directly from the form it takes. This may just seem a reverse of the first statement, but it is really entirely different.
The function of something, that purpose which it was designed and built to accomplish, is not always precisely the usage which later develops. It is precisely the law of unintended consequences, sans the fatalistic pessimism. The usage, or consequences, are never actually unexpected to the observant and thoughtful, they are actually quite predictable.
Curiously enough, that concept is a foundational guiding principle of the development of Economic Philosophy by Adam Smith.
As I have often expressed it when explaining the concept to other people, you first have to ask a simple question: “How do you play a game?” Of course, the first question most people immediately ask is, “What game?” Which entirely misses the point. It does not matter what game, any game, all games.
If you would know how to play a game, you must first know the rules of that game. Economic philosophy is the study of the rules of society itself, and how that affects the health, security, and prosperity of that society. We are not here for a economics lesson, rather a discussion of structure within society and how that affects the way things work.
Going back to our car example, the abstract function of a car is to transport people and things across land from one place to another. Those wheels, engines, seats, bodies, suspensions, and controls serve various functions in that objective, and take on a certain generalized form to accomplish that function.
So if the purpose of a car is to transport things from one place to another, why do people spend hours traveling over five hundred miles in an oval, almost always turning left I am told, only to end up in the exact same spot from which they started?
Because the use to which that car is put is not determined by the original function but by the possibilities which have been created by the form of the machine designed to fulfil that function. Racing is a usage, made possible by the form of the car, different from the basic function of the car’s design and creation.
Turning this concept towards the more political aspects of society, we can observe that it is not merely physical creations which have a form, but social creations as well. Economic, political, and religions institutions are all social creations. As such, their form naturally also follows their function.
The function of creating and raising children is most readily served by the form of a nuclear or extended family. The form of the family is one of the first and basic of social structures, and flows naturally from social animal which is human. Why many oppose the concept of a “family” of same sexed individuals, at a basic level comes back to a lack of purpose, of function, in society.
There is a great ado made about “do nothing” Congresses, not serving their function of passing laws. First this is false, Congress passes about five to six thousand pieces of legislation every year enacting two to three hundred new laws. Second, when did people get it stuck in their head that it was actually the job of Congress to pass laws?
I know it is a function of Congress, that is not what I mean. The purpose of laws is to create a simple easily understood system of rules, those rules by which this game called life is to be played. The passage of a law ought to be to clarify and simplify, not to add additional complexity and confusion into the already muddled system.
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” Federalist Paper #62.
The simple fact is that Congress can pass laws, therefore they do pass laws. Politicians want to make a name for themselves, to have their name attached to a piece of legislation. That way, they can go back to the voters and say, “see what I did.” Kind of like a little child telling their parents, “Hey, watch this.” This usage is not the function of a legislature, but it follows from having democratically elected officials who need to appeal to common voters.
The same is true when we send people to Congress to reduce the size of government, then we act surprised that they may merely slow the expansion of government rather than reduce it. There are few votes to be gained by doing less, by cutting agencies and laying off workers. Every government voter you fire is not just a vote you’ve lost, but a whole family of votes you’ve lost.
What about those state and federal pensions easily promised by a legislator? The bill for that employee’s retirement will not come due until long after you are retired yourself. What easier way to gain a little popularity but to promise that someone else will give out benefits sometime in the distant future? Of course, states like Illinois are now facing that bill for promises made to state employees thirty or forty years earlier.
There have been various pushes for political parties to avoid big money influence and special interest favoritism; calls to grass roots activism; and more responsive politicians. Democrats do this, Republicans do this, and many calls for a new improved third party to be created to do this from Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists, and now revived Federalists.
However, there are sound economic reasons why special interests will spend money where the individuals will not, why lobbying efforts are cost effective for large companies and billionaires but not cost effective for the average citizen. People foolishly act like it is some form of insidious corruption that large companies will spend millions of dollars lobbying for or against a rule which will cost them, or make them, tens of millions of dollars.
Planned Parenthood lobbies because they stand to make more money from the legislative spending than they are spending in their lobbying effort. Planned Parenthood is just another big corporate business like Exxon, and lobbying in their own best interests.
In the legislative process, people are often shocked to learn just how little any individual Congressman actually knows about those bills that they are considering. People are shocked that it is often the agency employees who write legislation or amendments, and not the actual legislators themselves.
Most Congressmen rely on staff and lobbyists to read legislation and advise them on what it actually does or says. They really are the popular kids in high school, reading the CliffsNotes version of legislation, spending their time shaking babies and kissing hand, or something like that. The politician is focused on his popularity and reelection, the actual act of legislating is just the daily grunt work between elections.
People keep calling for changes in policies, changes in practices, and changes in personalities of those who tend to hold higher office in our nation. What people never seem to notice is the structure of the processes and how that structure, more than the politics, dominates the outcomes.
The internet’s favorite quote:
If you find yourself wanting actual change rather than superficially rooting for your side to win; then you need to understand the underlying structure of the game. Want a different result, then use a different process, change the game, design a different structure.
