Dear Friends,
It seems to me that when you build a stone wall it is important to start with small stones for the base. As even as possible. They determine the foot print so they should be set within a bounded area. I usually use paint to denote the edges of the wall. Then the stones are placed to make a foundation within the bounds…
The next course is where you can be more creative. In this course it is important to select rocks that will set between the lower rocks so that their weight is resting on at least two stones. Another important selection point is that at least two, but three is better, should pile to the same height. This allows the next course to set on at least two, or more, stones below. You continue in this vein until the correct height is achieved.
Some tricks are to make sure the flat faces are pointing outside… to give a more pleasing look. Mix the sizes as much as possible. And fill in large voids with crushed and washed stone. This is the theme in building stone walls. They are planned, they are interlocking, (one on two and two on one), and if they are well built they can last for centuries.
The function of a stone wall is to separate an area from another area. In this it is useful to know the level of separation needed. This will enlighten us as to the height to build it. If the function is purely aesthetic then a low square wall is attractive. If we want to get fancy we can build a wall to the Fibrunacci rectangle. This makes the wall even more appealing to the eye.
Governments are like stone walls in that they have a foundation (constitution), they have structure, (bureaucracy) and they have function.
The Constitution is supposed to bound in the government. Like the paint and string bound in the stone wall a constitution is supposed to bound in government. The efficient function of a stone wall is negatively effected by making it larger than it need be. If a wall needs to be three courses wide… It is most efficient to make it three courses wide. But it will have no positive effect (on function) to make it four or five courses wide. That will only take room that could have been productively used (as tillage or livestock) to be tied up under a wall. Government is no different. If the constitution is ignored and the government grows outside the limits put on it by the constitution it looses efficient function.
The bureaucracy of government is like the courses up the wall. If they are poorly placed and the stones all come to a different height then the wall will be deficient. The stones will be piled one on another. Like columns of stones side by side. This is very unstable and will seldom last for more than one winter. Like this, poorly thought out bureaucracy is unstable, and seldom utile.
Lets say a stone wall is poorly constructed… It falls over. Is it more efficient to haul more stones in and re-pile the old stones in the same deficient way? Then build a supplementary wall adjacent to the first (using the same shoddy workmanship) to bolster the first?
Of course not. It is the height of insanity. It is more work for a less efficient and less stable product. The wall will only have more stone to re-pile next year. Unless the wall is torn down and rebuilt. Parliamentary government is like this. It falls over regularly and must be re-piled.
Now what if we have a perfectly useable stone wall. It is effective at keeping our livestock from our garden. But we want to make it even better. Does it make sense to add to our wall taking up valuable garden space? Only if the utility gained outweighs the loss in productive land. What about expanding into our pasture? The same calculation should be done there. (For the farmer to be rational). It seems that the base (constitution) should not be overstepped else function is harmed.
So the only way to expand our wall is to go up. (Add to the bureaucracy). But a stone wall is only stable if the height doesn’t exceed the width by fifty percent. (In my experience) beyond that walls become unstable and require more and more maintenance. Government is no different. Too much bureaucracy and government becomes a burden to society.
From this analogy we can glimpse the in our minds eye the ratio of government size structure and footprint to it’s effect on society. It provides us with a template.
I hope it helps…
