The ideas of most humans are formed by their basic worldview combined with their existential circumstances.  I believe this fairly self-evident statement applies in particular to the talk given by Dr. Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute at Cedarville University, Thursday night, March 12.  Murray is a brilliant man and his talk was a synthesis of his forthcoming book (which you will want to read).  So I expected something bold and innovative.  I was not disappointed.  I didn’t fully agree, but I can’t fault the logic of his argument.

Basically, Murray’s argument was predicated on the problem of the “regulatory state.”  The administrative apparatus of the Federal government has become oppressive, unworkable, clogged with thousands of ridiculous and petty regulations enforced by individuals who, while no better or worse than us, have a particular agenda.  Murray argued that this will never be changed through Congressional or judicial action as the disincentives for radical change are too strong.  What is to be done then?

Here Murray was bold indeed.  His solution was “massive civil disobedience.”  Now he did not mean literally in every case that individuals should refuse to obey government and he explicitly said we ought to pay our taxes and generally obey.  What he did suggest was (as I understood him) three possible approaches.  The first was literal individual refusal to obey some regulation that is onerous, hopefully along with many others.  His example was driving over the speed limit, which, as we know, is technically illegal but which nearly everyone does.  To do otherwise he argues would be giving in to a silly regulation/law and even dangerous.  Christians may take issue here, based on their reading of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 13.

A second approach is to build large monetary funds with which to challenge state regulations, to in essence “threaten” the government that you will not kowtow to them and will fight them legally as far and as long as possible.  Even if you are convicted, you then tell them your regulatory fine will be paid from the private fund.  In other words, “push back” against oppressive government regulation using their own tools—money and time and lawyers.

Murray’s third approach is to establish insurance funds for various professions and trades that suffer from regulatory oppression and fines for the most minute peccadillos.  Each individual professional or artisan would pay a small premium per month, which would then be used to pay fines levied by regulatory agencies like the EPA or OSHA.

As you can see, Murray’s ideas are nothing if not bold and certainly innovative, though I do see a bit of his thought reflected in seventeenth and eighteenth century “resistance theory.”  I cannot agree fully with his advocacy of mass civil disobedience, due to the principles contained in the Bible (Romans 13) that bind my conscience.  Moreover, I sense that he relies too heavily on the Declaration of Independence for his theoretical foundation.  I see the Declaration as a statement of aspiration and ideals, but not as a model for a political community.  That function is performed by the Constitution.  Nevertheless I most heartily agree with his characterization of the essential problem.  I simply am more optimistic than Murray is about change through the political or legal process.  But I also thank Dr. Murray for coming and making a genuine contribution to intellectual stimulation.  And I really want to read the book.