Perspectives: Good intentions backed by force are not good intentions

July 29, 2018 Utah Channel 3

OPINION — Trying to help others better understand the proper role of government can be a lot tougher than it sounds.

It’s easy to get bogged down in philosophical abstractions or political slogans such as the “greater good.” Most of us are taught, starting around age 5, to think of government as the great protector and overseer of our lives.

The fact that this compulsory conditioning takes place in a facility that is funded, staffed and run by the government should raise a few eyebrows. But it seldom does.

This learned dependency trains us to obey without question and to always seek permission from someone in authority, no matter how mundane the matter. As a result, many people today tend to put deeper contemplation into the type of shoes they wear than they do to the systems they allow to rule their lives.

Sometimes, however, the mask of benevolent force slips, revealing the authoritarian nature of the state in all its awfulness. When it does, there’s a lesson there that even the most deliberately obtuse will find difficult to justify.

Recently, Prince George’s county authorities in Maryland filed a legal case against an elderly Laurel couple in their 90s who had failed to get bureaucratic permission to build a wheelchair ramp at their home.

A surprising number of otherwise decent people will already be reflexively trying to think of the good intentions as to why this punitive action was necessary. So, let’s spell out a few more facts of the case and see if it can be justified.

Evelyn Strahle, 91, is wheelchair bound. Her 94-year-old husband David Strahle can no longer lift her up and down the two front steps to the home they’ve owned for many years. It’s now a two-person job.

Their son, Bob Strahle, is a builder and was able to build a perfectly sound ramp for his mother’s wheelchair at roughly one-third of the $5,000 cost that an outside contractor would have charged. Unfortunately for them, a county inspector soon came by and told them that they’d have to tear the ramp down because they hadn’t secured the proper permit.

Bob Strahle asked the inspector if he’d inspect the ramp and let him know if there were any modifications that would be required. The inspector refused, simply because the ramp had already been built and there was a bureaucratic process to be followed.

Even when he submitted plans and tried to file for a permit, the county denied him because he hadn’t first sought their permission. Instead, the county mailed an order to his parents demanding they show up in court or “be subject to fines and imprisonment, or both, for contempt of court.”

Rather than subject his parents to potential criminal consequences, Bob Strahle tore down the ramp, effectively limiting his mother’s freedom to leave home in her wheelchair.

Let’s review, for the sake of those engaged in the mental gymnastics necessary to try to make the county’s actions seem reasonable and right.

An elderly couple added a safe, functional and needed wheelchair ramp to their home — on their own property — at no expense to anyone but their own son. No one was injured in the creation of the ramp nor were they endangered by its use.

The ramp caused no harm to any person or their property. It provided a wheelchair-bound 91-year-old woman with a newly found degree of mobility to get in and out of her home safely.

What possible reason was there for government to get involved in the first place?

Why did the county feel the need to clip the wings of a 91-year-old woman? Because their bureaucratic rules demanded that the Strahle family come to the county first, with hat in hand, to beg permission and pay the requisite tribute before being allowed to solve their own problem.

In the face of the reality of what they’ve done, county officials are now backtracking and insisting that “something went awry” in how their functionaries handled the situation. But the truth is out there for anyone with eyes to see it.

The county inspector made a conscious decision to initiate the threat of force and cause harm to the Strahle family, just because the rules said he could. Rather than back away from a situation that would obviously harm this elderly couple, the inspector chose to keep going after a fat paycheck and hiding behind the mantra of “just following orders.”

It’s the perfect illustration of how good intentions, backed by government force, are no different from bad intentions enforced at gunpoint.

Each of us has personal responsibility for our actions. We cannot do bad things — even when ordered to — and still be a good person.

The “greater good” does not give us a free pass to threaten or coerce others who have caused no harm.

Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events and liberty viewed through what he calls the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: bryanh@stgnews.com

Twitter: @youcancallmebry