Chesterton's Vampire Stakes

His famous fence is a metaphor for a good heuristic. But we have to learn its limits and become rooted revolutionaries again.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” —G.K. Chesterton

Conservatives are fond of G. K. Chesterton and his fence.

If you encounter a fence and are uncertain about its function, it’s probably best not to tear it down. The same can be said for traditions and institutions, says Chesterton: Don’t radically reform what has been built up over time, because it might hold beneficial aspects or hidden wisdom.

This is undoubtedly a good heuristic. The trouble is, any program or policy can be compared to Chesterton’s Fence. Therefore, sometimes:

1. We have to raze their village to raise our village.

2. We have to pull up the stakes to kill the vampires.

3. We must tear down a rotten fence to clear underbrush and replace it.

So I have another formulation:

The degree of reform required is proportional to the degree of pathology in a system.
If what remains is beneficial, that aspect can be retained or reconstituted.

Rooted Revolutionaries

“I just don’t like how they’re going about it,” they’ll squawk about any reform.

After 80 years of the managerial state growing out of all proportion, including dark budgets and legions of unaccountable functionaries and NGO tentacles, you’d think we might have figured out a thing or two.

People are fond of saying that the Jacobins were an object lesson in how not to reform a government. Yet few say the same about the patriots of the American Revolution. And for good reason.

Not all revolutions are created equal.

We’re not always uncertain about the function of this policy or that. Sometimes your enemies build fences around you to pen you up like a herd animal.

What’s the difference between the American and French Revolutions?

• Outcomes and Stability. The American Revolution eventually established a stable constitutional republic that has persisted for nearly 250 years. The Jacobin period led to the Reign of Terror, political instability, and eventually Napoleon's dictatorship.

• Scale and Nature of Violence. While both revolutions involved violence, the Jacobin-led Terror was more systematic in its use of state violence against perceived internal enemies. The guillotine became a symbol of revolutionary excess that has no direct parallel in the American experience.

• Approach to Tradition. American revolutionaries positioned themselves as defending traditional English rights against new, unlawful impositions. They maintained continuity with existing legal traditions and institutions. The Jacobins explicitly sought to create an entirely new social order.

• Religious Positioning. The American Revolution generally accommodated religious institutions and practices. The Jacobins were explicitly anti-clerical and sought to reduce the Church's role in French society, while dramatically supporting efforts such as Cults of Reason.

• Historical Narrative Control. As the victors who established a lasting nation, Americans have controlled their revolutionary narrative for generations. The Jacobins lost control of their narrative early, as later governments sought to distance themselves from the ensuing Terror.

To sum up, one can argue that the Americans were rooted revolutionaries.

And we can be again.

Vampire Hunters

Maybe I sound like a Jacobin at times, but I am more a pro-civilization Jeffersonian—perhaps even a directional anarchist, where directional means evolution and revolution in equal measure. Yet the powerful who leverage the status quo to keep sucking the life blood out of society are predators and parasites.

So, we should be vampire hunters.

Or, in less colorful terms, consider that even nature has a way of molting and pruning. Responsible stewardship requires cleaning out the underbrush or experimenting with something new by starting small and local.

Here are a few examples of systems I would kill with either fire or stakes pulled up from Chesterton’s Fence:

• The Affordable Care Act—this law has been letting the Care-tel bleed us dry for more than fifteen years now. Kill it. End it. Leave nothing but ashes.
  

• Commerce Clause Abuse—Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 has been expansively interpreted to justify federal overreach in areas like labor, agriculture, and environmental regulation (See Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).
  

• The Federal Reserve Act—this abomination gave a single quasi-private body:

  • The power to help banks act with moral hazard,

  • A monopoly over setting the price of credit, and

  • A monopoly over the printing press.
    

• The Managerial Regime—The federal bureaucracy is too costly and unaccountable. DOGE must be codified and transformed into a predatory agency, sanctioned by Congress and empowered by the President to prune the Executive branch.

And yes, even:

• The Sixteenth Amendment—It punishes productivity, funds bloated programs, and creates a complex, intrusive bureaucracy (IRS) that routinely prosecutes individuals for errors and makes filing a constant source of frustration.

Of course, these don’t include replacement measures, so this might seem harsh. One might not like the idea of collateral damage due to federal tax revenue from income suddenly evaporating. One might even feel direct pain, or at least hear the lamentations of those who benefit from all the transfers—i.e., the squeals of special interests, *public servants*, and trough piggies.

Pay down federal debt or have a jubilee, then let the fifty states pick up the slack, as per Amendments 9 and 10.

Sometimes, it is wise to channel the power of Thanatos Feminine (i.e., to let things go) or Thanatos Masculine (i.e., to end it now). And, indeed, we should not underestimate the power of a free people to channel Eros Feminine (i.e., to let things grow) or even Eros Masculine (i.e., to make it so) when a functional replacement is needed.

Progressives think Shangri-La is just one tax increase and spending program away. Conservatives hesitate to tear down anything that is settled in law or tradition, even if the progressives built it.

Chesterton’s Fence should give us pause, but it shouldn’t obstruct needed change.

One big system-wide social experiment probably won’t work. And one big system-wide social experiment that isn’t working isn’t a fence worth protecting. We think it’s better to have 1000 local experiments, knowing only 200 will work. What works will persist. What doesn’t work will pass away. The People should decide what works and what doesn’t through their sovereign choices. Not votes, choices.

Nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design.
—Adam Ferguson

It is essential to think about the ramifications of reform, but it is even more important not to let your adversaries fence you in with social engineering schemes.

So, grab a stake.