We need a solution, but all I see are absurd proposals, either solutions which won't work, pie in the sky day dreams, or bad ideas that we have tried before and which simply failed.

For example, tax reform. The FairTax people say the Flat Tax won't work because it is akin to what Reagan did and that has been amended 8000 times. So, why do they think the FairTax will be immune from changes? Their argument is "the law says so". Are they really that foolish?  FairTax, Flat Tax, it doesn't matter, politicians will find a way to modify it, to add other taxes and so on. Just because the piece of paper says "don't touch this", will politicians be deterred? They PASSED THE LAW, they can change it a well.

Or the party system. Many people complain that "there's no difference between the parties" and propose some third party as a panacea. They want to see the Libertarians or the Constitutional Party or that guy named "Joe" who posts his pitch on all the columns, see any of them "given a fair chance". have they never read history? The Populists, the Progressives, the Bull Moose, and on and on. Third parties either get absorbed into one of the two major parties, or they die. They do not change the system, they are captured just like the big two.

And even if they weren't, then what would we have? A European parliamentary system? A multiparty congress? And how would that stop corruption? Are they suggesting that all those states in Europe which have two parties are more libertarian? Or more free of corruption? Are they serious?

And term limits? Does it seem that would help? Politicians are politicians. Does it really matter if you are being worked over by a freshman, a sophomore or a senior? At best it will just mean we rotate corrupt politicians through the system a little faster, at worst it will strip those in elected office of all their power and move authority to the unelected bureaucracy, who do not rotate out during elections, creating an unelected elite, who are even less responsive than our elected officials.

Even the solutions I have proposed are not panaceas. I have, for instance, suggested a gold standard, but I realize that will not cure all our ills. Even with a gold standard, there is the possibility of massive inflation through fractional reserve banking (though it is a little bit harder), and the government can still pass laws to create a massive inflationary infrastructure, as they did in the late 19th century. And fi they don't, then they will simply end up borrowing instead of inflating, and that will grind the economy to a halt. I realize, without fiscal responsibility on the part of the government, the gold standard will solve very little.

You see, the problem is not any particular system. It is our attitude. We have handed over power to politicians and then not held them accountable. We have come to expect politicians to do whatever we want, but then expect them to exercise restraint in all other things. In other words, we want them to have limitless power when do our bidding, and no power when doing the bidding of everyone else. In other words, voters want a double standard, they want the government to take care of all their problems, and then leave them alone. Well, government isn't a genie from children's tales. Once you give it limitless power, it will exercise it, and whatever good you manage to extract will be far outweighed by the ills you will suffer.

What we really need is a voter who realizes that government is not a good tool to solve your disappointments with life. That whatever they give you, minimum wage, free health care, or so on, will come at far greater a cost than any benefit you can get. Once voters realize that, maybe, just maybe, we will have a chance to restore the mindset that government is a very limited tool, good at protecting us against force, fraud and theft, and settling disputes, and very little else.

At that point, FairTax, Flat Tax, or capitation tax, it doesn't matter much, as the expenditures will be small enough that it won't matter. Likewise, who cares whether there are term limits or not when the politicians exercise so little power? And who cares how many parties there are either? Once we have voters who rein in government, all these other questions become moot.

Which brings me to the one proposal I have made which I think has a real chance of helping. No guarantee, but a chance.

If we begin to return to a truly federal system, remove power from the federal government and slowly move it to the states, and then from the states to the counties, and from the counties to the local government, maybe, just maybe, we an start to change things.

You see there are two big problems with our government. One, people think they have no voice. And two, there is only one solution.

Let us deal with that second one first.

With the federal government having essentially veto power over states and localities, we have really only one solution. Look at the efforts by states to change laws they do not like. When states attempted to enact medical marijuana laws, the feds threatened prosecutions, for example, basically telling the states there would be only one drug policy. Likewise, when some states wanted to raise highway speed limits, the feds threatened to cut off highway money, saying in effect, you must still contribute, but you will not get any back.  The same happened with states that resisted mandatory seat belt laws, or those that resisted the 21  year old drinking age. In each case the federal government threatened to continue taking contributions for the highways, but then refused to distribute any funds until the state complied with their demands. With a centralized federal government, there can be only one solution.

And that is part of why we see all these single solution proposals. FairTax, a new party, and so on, they are trying to adopt the federal model as their own. If a single answer broke it, maybe a single answer will fix it.

My answer is different. I want to create 50 answers, maybe 100 or 1000. If each locality can vote their own policy on a range of questions, we have a chance that maybe a few will get it right. And if they do, maybe some more will notice the benefits they enjoy and adopt it. That is one of the two reasons I support federalism, because it allows for error correction.

Let us look at our system now. The feds, if they get it wrong, who will correct them? Let us say they pass a tax policy which slowly causes the economy to grind to a halt. Provided it is not so dramatic that everyone notices, how will the problem be fixed? It won't. At least not until someone gets elected with sufficient power to enact another solution. And so we end up having to hope that our elected officials are perfect, or close enough that they get more right than they get wrong.

If we have a federal system, we only have to hope that someone, somewhere gets one thing right, and that others ar enot so blind that they fail to notice. And we don't even have to hope the same person gets two things right, as each region can adopt solutions from one another. So long as for each question one person gets it right somewhere, there exists the chance that it may be adopted. At worst it will be ignored, at best it will slowly spread to other areas until its benefit is undeniable and it is adopted, probably not universally, but at least in a pretty widespread manner.

The second issue is personal power. And that too explains the enthusiasm for things such as the FairTax. In our system, a single individual has no voice. Unless you are very wealthy, well connected, or a celebrity, you are one of several hundreds of thousands who a congressman represents. Your voice means very little. And so people think of massive movements, such as the FairTax or the third party movement.

But there is an alternative. Your voice means a lot more to a county councilman, who answers to a few thousand at most. Or a town alderman who answers to a few hundred. So if a question is to be answered locally, your voice is a thousand times louder, and you no longer need a mass movement. You can instead gather a few dozen people and make changes. The government gets much more responsive at a local level.

Of course, I am under no illusions. Even federalism could be perverted, as we have seen throughout our history. We once had a system close to what I am proposing, and it turned into what we have now. So there is no guarantee it will work. The only reason I even propose it is that my plan does seem to be the only one which begins to reinforce the proper mindset. And that mindset, that alone is what will work.

And that, I suppose, is my real point. That the only answer, the only thing which will work, is not some political reform, not some law, not some policy, not even a third party, but a change in our outlook. Right now we still see the state as a magical tool to solve all our ills. From unemployment to inflation to racism to depression to breast cancer to teen bullying, the government will fix everything. And we need to move away from that idea. Until we see the government as nothing but the policeman the soldier and the civil judge we will continue to have this problem.

You see, our problem is not how the government does what it does, but that it does so many things at all. And we will not see any relief from changing how things are done, we will only find relief when we ask "Should government be doing this at all?"