How Should We Be Governed

Reality is indifferent to opinion. It exists as an immovable constant, unconcerned with what you think, what you feel, or what you choose to believe.

All human plans, beliefs, and actions originate from an inherent handicap: incomplete knowledge and subjective goals. In this realm of partial data, there is no absolute "Right," only an endless spectrum of "Wrong."

Because we can never possess all the facts, our resultant plan—our "right" choice—is inevitably flawed. Every well-intentioned action generates unforeseen negative consequences or collateral damage. The attempt to do "good" is merely the selection of a choice that results in a lesser degree of wrong than any other option.

Our collective aspiration, therefore, is to identify and pursue that Least Wrong choice—the path that minimizes harm, maximizes liberty, and disperses power. What we truly seek is a system that reduces coercion, inefficiency, and injustice to the lowest possible degree.

The act of choosing between difficult options is not about discovering a righteous path; it is an exercise in calculus—calculating which decision results in the smallest magnitude of error, regret, or damage. We are perpetually engaged in the pursuit of the Least Wrong.

This recognition fundamentally shifts the goal of human endeavor: we must abandon the futile quest for Perfection (Absolute Right) and instead embrace the practical pursuit of Optimization (Least Wrong).

It compels a necessary skepticism toward anyone claiming to possess the "absolute truth" or "the single right answer." It reframes our view of the opposition: the other is not a villain, but a fellow victim of the same handicap.

Even as evidence mounts and tensions rise, do not waste this moment in hatred. Recognize the exhausted, fearful soul in others; they are merely trying, just as you are, to construct a fragile order from overwhelming chaos. The tool of our judgment, like any other, is wielded in ignorance: it can just as easily tear down as it can build up.

No political system is inherently 'right.' Rather, different systems vary in their degrees of 'wrongness.' Democracy, for example, is arguably less detrimental than tyranny because it minimizes harm by distributing power and allowing greater freedom. However, all systems invariably involve some measure of coercion, inefficiency, and injustice.

The American constitutional republic is designed to mitigate these flaws: it does not grant rights, but rather protects pre-existing rights—namely Life, Liberty, and the fruits of one's labor. Crucially, its structure restricts government power, ensuring these protections cannot be overridden by either the tyranny of a majority vote or unchecked governmental overreach.

Ultimately, this suggests that political systems should not be judged by an impossible standard of perfection, but by their capacity to limit harm. While all forms of government impose inescapable burdens of coercion and inefficiency, the constitutional republic provides a superior framework.

Its primary function is to serve as a protective safeguard for individual rights against the very entities—both majoritarian and governmental—that might otherwise seek to infringe upon them, making it the least "wrong" choice by design.

Vincent Easley II https://reallibertymedia.com/how-should-we-be-governed-2

☆