All the wrong lessons

We can choose not to be governed, and be careful to always apply our principles

I enjoy reading the Gem State Chronicle as it is one of the few outlets these days that has any real coverage of the Idaho Politickery, and it tends to hit the major issues that the legacy media avoids. But sometimes I cannot help but be annoyed at writer Brian Almon’s tendency to adopt some of the usual wrong narratives about what it is supposed to mean to be a center-right policymaker in the state of Idaho.

One of my photos of the House of Representatives chamber in the Idaho Statehouse

No offense, Brian, I still like you. But, you’re wrong when you write:

[I]t's not enough to elect conservatives to public office; they must also be ready and able to govern.

I so detest this line. The idea that it’s up to politicians to “govern” free people is maddening. No. I do not need to be governed. I do not participate in politics and public policy so that I can choose folks to “govern” me. The reason I vote for “conservatives” or “libertarians” is because I intend to be completely ungovernable, and I select candidates that are least likely to want to manage my affairs and those of my neighbors.

Unfortunately, the 2025 legislative session proved a lot of legislators do not understand this mission. They believe that it is their job to demonstrate their capacity for governing, namely to carry on with the policies of their predecessors. If the leftist legislators of yesteryear enacted a big government program or law, they argue, it is their job to continue those policies but manage them in a more right-of-center way.

I disagree. It is not the government’s job to provide me with free or reduced cost housing, food, clothing, or medicine. It is not the government’s job to pick businesses to favor with special tax breaks and incentives. It is not the government’s job to make decisions for me and make me safe from bad choices. It is not the government’s job to help me get ahead or stay ahead. It is not the government’s job to plan the lives of my kids or grandkids so that they might choose a profession or where they might live.

Next to nothing happened last legislative session to shift the status quo on the way the state runs the lives of Idahoans. Legislators should worry less about “governing” and more about getting government to stop governing so damn much.

It is the government’s job to protect life, liberty, and property, and to manage those functions of government devoted to solely to that purpose. And that’s pretty much it. Figuring out how to “govern” people is not in the list.

---

Legislators also still seem to believe that it is their job to shape society to a fashion that more mirrors their particular tastes, preferences, and theologies. No. Their job is to dismantle and dispose of anything that is violative of the proper role of government. Full stop.

Legislators last session saw Boise city government properties, with their pride flags, and said, essentially, “I don’t like to see government displaying the pride flag, so I will write a bill to stop that. My bill will also allow for the flags we do like, including official government flags and the POW/MIA flag because we conservatives support the military.”

If legislators had spied with their little eyes a Don’t Tread on Me Flag, they might not have reacted so bitterly, but they should have. It’s not about which flag. It’s about the misuse of public funds to promote any cause whatsoever.

And so very much of the conversation following the legislative session is focused on one stupid bill and conservatives’ dismay at how the city of Boise, predictably, is getting around it. On this point Brian writes:

The current fight over House Bill 96 and the Boise pride flag shows that simply passing laws isn’t enough—we need specific provisions to hold lawbreakers accountable. Again, in a perfect world, Mayor Lauren McLean would follow the law despite her personal feelings. But we don’t live in that world.

This is not the correct lesson. The lesson should be that the bill was badly conceived. Because the Legislature decided to pick and choose with flags could be flown, the Legislature created a loophole that the city was able to exploit and drive a truck through. It was completely predictable.

If lawmakers had paused to consider potential legislation from the narrow lens of the proper role of government, they would have recognized that the debate isn’t over the display of a flag, but rather public resources being used to give special favor, visibility, or preference to a particular group or the government sanctioning of beliefs or ideas. If lawmakers had done that, they would have recognized that the issue is not about flags at all, and they would have written legislation that prohibits government resources being used to provide any group with favoritism of any kind, be it via a flag, t-shirt, TV show, or whatever; be it gay couples or military members lost in the theater of combat. Government should not have favorites, and government should not be engaged in any activities outside its scope of responsibilities.

For an example of how this is done, look to Title 74, Chapter 6, the Idaho Integrity in Elections Act. This legislation, which I helped write in 2018, prohibits government from picking a side in elections. The legislation doesn’t try to adjudicate some causes being more worthy or less worthy than others. It just says it’s wrong for government to pick a side and expend money to that end.

Brian continues:

Regarding the flag controversy, I’ve heard many people express frustration that Attorney General Raúl Labrador or Sheriff Matt Clifford haven’t personally marched to Boise City Hall to clap McLean in irons. While such a spectacle might momentarily delight conservatives, it would almost certainly be immediately enjoined in court—and then used as a political weapon against Labrador or Clifford for years to come.

If you’ve concluded that the reason we should oppose such an action is because it might be enjoined in court and then weaponized in a campaign, you’ve missed the point entirely. Government is force. If you like the idea of government having the power to throw someone in chains, don’t be terribly shocked when such a power is used against you.

One should take care to not give government power to throw people in chains because you happened to not like a particular flag being flown. Instead, consider legislation that still squares with the ideas of limiting government power and is thoughtful about the manner in which the law is enforced. The real crime here is misuse of public funds and the misapplication of funds contrary and outside of the mission of the city. The punishment for that should attach accordingly, and there’s already a way in Idaho law to adjudicate for that.

One more point that Brian makes that saddens me greatly. He says:

I understand that conservatives and libertarians long for a world in which government doesn’t intrude into our lives, but once again, that’s not the world we live in.

It’s not the world we live in because we lack the imagination or courage to charge the hill toward a different possible outcome. Even with a supposedly “conservative” legislature, Idahoans aren’t really very free. Until we understand the point of lawmaking — it’s not to govern, not to regulate flags, not to use power of government to chain the people who piss us off — we’ll never truly give people the type of government our founders intended.

More for paid subscribers below: