I mentioned yesterday that I was receiving hits on an older essay "Third Party Problems". What was interesting to me was, in rereading that essay, along with some others such as "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", I realized I have given the appearance of being guilty of the very same excesses of which I accuse others. Especially recently, in my campaign against all regulation, I have been giving the impression of being an unrealistic, doctrinaire libertarian, precisely the sort of thinker who made me so reluctant to join various third parties. After spending so much time earlier in this blog making clear the difference between ideal and practical, or better, abstract ideals and practical ideals, I feel I have been remiss in keeping clear that distinction, and have given the impression that I am every bit as much the revolutionary, impractical theorist as those I once criticized.

Now, let me start with a disclaimer. When I say "practical" it has nothing to do with "pragmatism". ("The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again") The pragmatist is one who has no clear principles and simply accepts any theory which reaches some ill defined ends. That is not my position. When I speak of ideals and practicality I am speaking of two completely different things. The ideal is the perfect system, should I start constructing a system from whole cloth, with absolute control over every aspect, without any history, it is the system I would construct. The practical is the system which includes considerations of the real world, the situation in which we find ourselves, and thus includes the steps to transform the present system into something close to the ideal with the least harm. So, the practical does not represent stepping away from my principles, simply a recognition that we have a political history and that we must get from A to B, a fact most ideal concepts rarely recognize.

The first problem, the one which most political theories fail to consider, is that a change must be durable. As I described in  "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", any change imposed from above by a slender majority, or even by a minority with political savvy, can be undone by future political changes. Granted, an unscrupulous group, such as the Nazi party, can turn a 32% plurality into a lasting rule through the ruthless elimination of competition, but that is anathema to my political beliefs, so for a change to be lasting it must have both broad support and have been thoroughly integrated into the political system. That means we must not only educate the public to the benefits of our philosophy, but they must truly, viscerally understand those benefits. In some part this is a function of time (which I will discuss shortly), but it also means they must have the experience of the system standing in contrast to others. Which is why I have suggested again and again a federalist system ("The Benefits of Federalism"), allowing them to compare a libertarian/conservative approach to a more large government approach first hand and see the differences with their own eyes. That sort of evidence carries much more weight than any theoretical understanding for many voters.

The second crucial difference is the pace of change. When creating from scratch, that is when conceptually designing a system, it is fine to make change as rapid as you want.("Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism","In Praise of Slow Changes",  "Interpretation and Activism") In practical terms, rapid change is a danger. All change brings with it the risk of unforeseen consequences, even change for the best. Understanding all possible interactions in a social system is beyond the ability of any man, or group of men ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management"). We may know that a libertarian system will produce optimal results in the end, but at every step along the way, do we understand every consequence of the mixed system our reforms will create? If not, then we are best protected by making changes slowly, allowing us time to notice any unforeseen consequences and modify our plans accordingly. In addition, by taking time with our changes, we allow time for them to become familiar to the public, to become, in essence "the way things have always been". As I pointed out in "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Liberalism's False Dichotomy " and "Preexisting Conditions", our idea that without public education only the rich would go to school is a consequence of public education being so familiar, not any true understanding of the situation. By making libertarian institutions similarly familiar we guarantee they will be equally hard to dissolve should the political tides change.

And there is a third, and very significant, reason to favor a practical approach somewhat separate from my ideal. You see, while my ideal thesis is wholly my own, admittedly built on the work of many brilliant thinkers, but still the creation of a single individual, my federalist approach, allowing many individuals to gradually refine their local government, with good ideas spreading as their merit is recognized, allows for both the correction of my errors and the addition of improvements I missed. Unlike most theorists, I admit that I probably made some mistakes, I probably overlooked some things, and I may even be completely wrong on some questions. So, rather than day dream of imposing my own probably flawed vision on everyone from above, I would rather see a system put in place which I think would favor my vision becoming reality, but also contains mechanisms to correct any problems that may exist in my theory.

And so I need to try harder to make clear the distinctions between ideal and practical. Ideally the state would be limited to addressing questions of force, theft and fraud ("My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II"), would have no regulatory powers and have no involvement in 99% or more of life, right of contract would be absolute and unrestricted and individuals would largely be controlled through private social constraints ("Changing Incentives") not public laws. And, the one area where ideal and practical overlap, government power would be concentrated on the lowest level possible, that is as decentralized as practical.

But that is the ideal. I would be happy to see government power simply shifted from a centralized authority to more localized ones ( "The Benefits of Federalism" ), see the federal reserve gradually dissolved in favor of a gold standard (even a government regulated one)("Why Gold?") and see the right of contract restored. Of course decentralization would, of necessity disband much of the federal regulatory apparatus. Whether it would be replaced by state or local regulators would be a question for the states and localities.

Of course I believe that eventually the federalist/localized system would lead toward the ideal system. As people saw the various options working in the real world, they would recognize the benefits of less regulation, greater individual autonomy and so on. And as the benefits are recognized they would spread, as citizens would demand the benefits their neighbors enjoy. There would probably remain a few hold outs, states which resist deregulation despite all the evidence (much the way some states insist on high taxes despite the loss of business and citizens). And there would be some local variations on minor matters, such as the punishment for misdemeanors. But, overall, I would like to think people would see the benefits of freedom and move toward it.

Then again, if you disagree, if you think there is a benefit to more government, then you should like my system too. After all it would allow you to prove the benefits of big government in the real world, to show once and for all that I and those like me are wrong, and convince people that big government works.

It seems everyone wins if we decentralize. Unless your solution depends on keeping people in the dark about the merits of your beliefs.