I admit it, when I was younger I was part of what I call the "Rand Cult". By that I mean those who accept as gospel every work Ayn Rand (and her successors) wrote, those who think Nathaniel Branden stopped making sense as soon as Rand excommunicated him, who believe Rand's art criticism expresses more than her personal prejudices, who think there is a rational argument for atheism, etc. Now I have matured and, like most who eventually grow up, I left those cultish days behind me. (I also left behind my brief flirtation with anarcho-communism, my brief trip into the neo-hippy world of the 1980's, my many years as a punk rocker, and a lot of other stupidities.) I now can see that Rand had a number of good ideas, but also had a habit of rationalizing her own prejudices, while pretending to be completely objective.

Why this long preamble?

Well, when I was a Rand fancier I thought we had to make huge changes to get the government back on track. And I was not alone. Every day I see people arguing for huge reforms to get back our government.

I can see the reason, I was guilty of the same thing until recently. But now, having thought about it, I can see that we can make huge strides in recovering a sane government with just a few simple reforms. (I admit these won't cover all of the problems we face, but I doubt any change will be a panacea, I am just looking for a 90%, or maybe 75%, solution. As the cliche says "the perfect is the enemy of the good", and waiting for the 100% solution may take forever. Better to jump in and work on a solution that solves at least half of the problems.)

So, how can we win back our government? The answer is simple: Return to a true federalist system and give up on an omnipotent central government. I will explain why this is good, and how it will help, in a moment, but first, the few simple steps to reach, if not perfection, at least a much better system:

1. Restore state funding of the federal government
2. Stop direct election of senators
3. Limit federal government to adjudicating civil disputes relating to interstate commerce
4. Eliminate federal law enforcement
5. Reform immigration and border security (see below for discussion)

The first four are the principal points. I added the fifth only because the problem is so bad at the moment. Under better circumstances I doubt I would have given much thought to the border, but, both being at war and suffering from a wave of illegal immigrants, I think we do need to address it. However, as it is not part of the basic 4 issues, I will treat it separately at the end of this comment.

The Founders clearly instituted the principles of state funding and state appointment of senators for a reason. And Wilson and the "reformers" and "progressives" passed the 16th and 17th amendments for the same reason. If the states hold the purse strings, and have senators who act as a voice of state, rather than popular, interests, then it is hard to expand federal power. Only by expanding federal authority, and removing the power of the states, could the "reformers" of the early 20th century enact the sweeping changes they wanted.

I have discussed below how the first two principles will lead to beneficial reforms, so I will discuss the last two now, then border reform. (This won't be a comprehensive essay. As you can tell, I have just realized recently how this will benefit us, so I plan to write a more comprehensive -- and coherent -- analysis later.)

The interstate commerce clause needs to go, or at least be reinterpreted. Most of the harm the federal government does is based on this clause. From antitrust to price regulation to nationalizing the railroads to firearm regulation and on and on. The interstate commerce clause has been used to justify almost anything.

What we need to do is to read this clause to mean that the federal government has two, and only two, roles. First, the federal government can strike down state laws which seek to restrict or regulate trade between the states. Second the federal government will provide civil courts to settle disputes arising from trade between the states. That's it. No criminal enforcement powers, no ability to ADD laws, just the ability to settle civil disputes and the ability to TAKE LAWS AWAY. The federal government's role should be essentially passive. Not as an active participant in trade, but simply as an arbiter and a remover of barriers.

Which brings us to the change most will not understand. Many will doubtless ask why we need to eliminate federal law enforcement. After all, the FBI (excepting Waco, Ruby Ridge and a few other black eyes) has a pretty positive reputation, and what it does seems important. So, most will ask, why get rid of it?

The answer is twofold.First, we need to get rid of federal law enforcement on principle alone. The whole idea of the FBI and its ilk (DEA, Secret Service, etc.) is that the power of the federal government trumps that of the states, that the feds have the authority to go into a state and overrule the locals. We need to fight this mindset if we ever want any reform.

The second reason is more practical. If the feds are stripped of civil authority (see rule 3), they may attempt to use criminal authority instead. Remember, antitrust laws are both civil and criminal. If we leave a law enforcement role for the feds, they may try to use that power to regulate economic and social matters by criminalizing them. So, if any of the other reforms are to have teeth, we need to remove federal law enforcement as well.

So, how to handle crimes across state lines? The answer is simple. We have interstate compacts, as we do now. Rather than going to the FBI, the states involved agree how matters relating to interstate crime are resolved. As with taxation, economics, and everything else, we end up with locally tailored solutions rather than a "one size fits all" imposed federal solution. Which I think is a better outcome.

Which brings us to the border.

Ideally, in theory, I believe in free immigration. As Pareto and others argued, it is to the benefit of all to have free immigration. Yes, it lowers wages in relatively underpopulated nations, but it also lowers prices, and to a greater degree. So, though it may hurt a few who benefit inordinately from artificially elevated wages, it helps overall much more than it hurts.

But that is in theory. And under ideal circumstances. Neither of which is our current condition. And it concentrates on purely "economic" matters, while ignoring everything else.

So, what would I do?

First, let me say that my usual answer of "leave it to the states" won't work here. As anyone admitted to one state becomes a citizen of the nation, we can't allow one state to make rules, as it would change the rules for all.

So, how to proceed?

First we need to eliminate the quotas based on nation of origin. Whether we use the pre-60's eurocentric rules, or the current rules, the idea of basing immigration on nation of origin is absurd. Why admit 10 from country X and 10 from country Y regardless of qualifications, if there are 20 skilled immigrants applying from X and only 2 from Y?

A better system would be to either (1) set an overall limit for immigration in a year and accept based on fixed criteria until that number is reached, regardless of nation or (2) even better, just set immigration criteria, and then accept all who meet those criteria.

And how to evaluate who should be allowed in?

This part is a bit more tricky, and I haven't thought it through completely. However, I think it would be fair to accept immigrants if they are either guaranteed a job in the US or if they have citizens sponsoring them, and guaranteeing their support. I also think those meeting certain job skills or educational criteria can probably be safely admitted. The rest I would have to think about some more, so forgive me if I put this part off for a bit longer. (Immigration reform is not one of my primary interests, so I would need to apply more thought to this. Not that it isn't a huge issue, just not one of those about which I can claim any expertise.)

I would also take a serious look at asylum procedures, as these seem rife with abuse. But , again, I have not looked into this enough to say more at this time.

Lastly, I would add some simple restrictions on immigrants with criminal records, communicable diseases, or originating from nations known to be hostile to the US, or with which we are at war. These won't prevent all problems, but seem simple, minimal common sense restrictions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is running on much longer than I expected, so I will cut it off here. I have put out my basic reform ideas, and justified them to a degree. When time allows, I will come back to this and write a much better explanation of why these four simple reforms will cure a host of ills, from eliminating the Federal Reserve [justified by the interstate commerce clause] to ending most of the ills of welfare [or at least return welfare to a state issue, rather than a nationwide issue]. But I do have to get back to work now, so I will publish this "as is" and hope to correct my more horrific mistakes in a follow-up piece.

Correction (07/29/2008): It is odd to correct such an old post, but I spotted an error while reading it and just couldn't ignore it. I seem to have a set of regular mistakes, and this is one of them. Just as I type "form" for "from", "sue" for "use", drop the second "i" from "missile", attribute Pascal's gambit to Poincare, call ARMs APRs, and type "BNR" for "BNF", I also seem to inevitably confuse Pareto and Ricardo. My statement above should have mentioned Ricardo in terms of free migration of labor, not Pareto. So please read it as such.