When I was younger, I would have said, with no hesitation, "I am a libertarian". As I grew older, and realized that the Libertarian Party had little hope, I would have changed my answer to "I am a registered Republican, but I support libertarian policies." Now, having grown older and wiser, I can state with certainty, I am NOT a libertarian.

Now many will think that my change of heart means I have come to support Bush or Huckabee-like big government social conservative policies, or even Bozell's more limited censorship schemes. Or perhaps I have come to accept some limits of personal freedom as most of the "defense conservatives" have. Or some combination of the above.

Nothing could be farther form the truth. Yes, I may think that some libertarians take too extreme a position on personal liberties when it comes to national defense, And I sometimes think our culture has become a bit crass and jaded. (Though I favor curing that through voluntary restraint and social disapproval of Hollywood's excesses, not government mandates). But my meaning is different.

My problem with libertarians* is that their approach screams of central government and draconian solutions, and is, in itself, completely unworkable. While I support the ends of minimal government and restoring the bulk of decisions to the individual, I think the Libertarians, by becoming a national political party, have lost sight of the only way these goals can be achieved.

So, while I may retain a belief in the benefits of personal liberty, I have decided that federalism is the only solution, libertarianism is not.

To explain, let us first look at the problems with applying libertarian beliefs, or any beliefs, in a top-down manner, making changes nationwide at a federal level, and ask ourselves why libertarianism imposed from above will not work. And, if one looks at another nationwide, imposed solution, the "resolution" of the abortion debate in 1973, to see why this will not work.

First, anything imposed form above can be revoked from above as well. If libertarianism is imposed in a single place, the federal government, it can be revoked in that single place as well. It creates a single battleground where the issue must be fought out, a singular, nasty battleground, just as we have seen with abortion. Prior to 1973, abortion was argued locally on a state level, in 50 different communities, since 1973, it has been one, single, winner-takes-all fight, fought out in the Supreme Court. Having but one arena, the battle allows no compromise. Where before pro-life could win three states and lose five, now they win or lose the whole thing. This leads to nasty fighting, and resentment. It also makes any resolution very unstable, as a single bit of bad luck can remove all progress made by either side. And libertarianism imposed on the federal level will be no more stable.

Second, the country is not ready as a whole for the radical change of thought that libertarian policies entail. Just as the imposed 1973 Roe v Wade decision went against the grain of a number of states, creating feelings of resentment against the imposed federal solution, a libertarian policy imposed from above will create similar resentment among the big government supporters, and those who are hurt by the changes in government policies. By imposing it from above, it will create a huge group of disaffected who will provide the impetus for a counter-revolution. And, as change at a federal level requires only one win, as I said above, this group of the disaffected will likely allow any libertarian wins to be overthrown very quickly.

Third, libertarianism imposed from above completely ignores any local or personal differences in desires. While I disagree with the belief that the government should be larger, or more involved in our lives, there are many people, and even majorities in a number of states which do believe that. And, as I said in my second point, by imposing libertarian policies on them, this will create a lot of resentment. An imposed federal solution will of necessity be uniform, allowing for no regional or local variations, which will alienate these states, creating a fertile environment to vote in a big government supporter to work against all libertarian gains. As I said in the point above, by being imposed form above, the libertarian solution contains the seeds of its own destruction.

So, having argued that imposing nationwide libertarian reforms will not work, is there a way to impose libertarianism which will not result in failure?

And the answer is: no.

But a qualified no.

Let me explain. I do not think libertarianism can be imposed, nor should it. Decreeing freedom by law seems a bit contradictory on the face of it, and I don't think it will ever work. Too many people rely on the big government policies we have, and too many are simply used to the massive government we have had since the Wilson administration. Almost a century of conventional wisdom cannot be removed overnight, and I think the libertarians are foolish to even try to "enforce liberty" through governmental action.

No, the solution is to allow people to decide, and rely on the superiority of freedom. Given a choice between freedom and authoritarianism, I think people will eventually choose freedom. And this allows us to bring about libertarianism "through the backdoor". Instead of trying the libertarian approach of imposed freedom, I support a federalist policy, which, by decentralizing the government, creating 50 little laboratories, will allow people to see the relative merits of various policies, and, over time, adopt those which grant them the most benefits. And, I believe, they will eventually realize that the policies which benefit them the most, are those which grant the greatest freedom.

That is a big claim, I know, and goes against a lot of beliefs most of us hold, so let me try to show that I know what I am saying.

If we follow a strictly federalist approach, the federal government would exercise control over only national defense, foreign relations, providing courts to resolve civil cases crossing state boundaries, and removing trade barriers between the states. All other decisions would be made at a state, or perhaps even local level. This allows for 50 or more different sets of laws, giving us lots of little "laboratories" where various policies can be tried out and the relative merits examined.

If one truly believes in libertarian policies, then one must believe that the policies which increase personal liberty also generate the greatest benefits for the greatest numbers. If that is true, then those states which adopt more libertarian policies, will also have better living conditions than those which do not.

So, how does this translate into libertarianism being spread by federalism?

Well, first, we would assume that states would only enact policies supported by a majority of citizens in that state. This means that those states which enact libertarian policies would be states which are ready for such policies, so the new laws are unlikely to be easily overturned. This means that libertarianism would be more firmly entrenched in those states than it would if imposed over the entire nation at a federal level.

However, there is more. Once a state enacts a libertarian policy, the benefits will slowly become obvious to other states, or at least to the citizens of other states who see the greater prosperity of residents in this state. This will lead to two possible outcomes.  First, some states will wisely give in to popular pressure and enact similar libertarian policies, leading to a spread of libertarian laws. Second, states which refuse to do so will see their citizens flee to the more libertarian states, until they too enact such laws. Both outcomes will lead to an eventual universal adoption of the most successful libertarian policies.

Nor is that the only benefit. By allowing us to evaluate policies fairly, having multiple laboratories will prevent unfair claims being leveled at libertarian policies. For example, when the banks were "dergulated" all ills of the banking system were blamed on deregulation, even if they had other causes. Under a federal system, it will be possible to see what ills are actually the result of libertarian policies and what ills are systemic or have alternate causes. So by allowing us to create "control groups" for our social policies, it will let us debunk some myths about the harm done by "unregulated' free markets.

Lastly, the federalist system will allow for the "John Galt effect". Although the situation presented in Atlas Shrugged is not possible in real life, the federal system will allow the next best thing. If a law is imposed by the federal government we have no recourse except to leave the country entirely. With federalism, that is not the case. If a single state enacts laws which are too detrimental to business, or a particular business, they will quite swiftly see citizens fleeing their state to more inviting states, resulting in a loss of taxes, jobs, and the disappearance of their most productive citizens. Just as in Atlas Shrugged, the states that interfere the most with business will see their revenues drop. (Even today, with our very limited state autonomy, we are seeing this in Maryland, California and elsewhere, though on a smaller scale.)

Perhaps a few examples of specific policies will help show how federalism will benefit us:

1. Drug Laws: Whether one supports drug legalization or wishes to support the war on drugs, the federalist approach will be beneficial. Currently, we have one policy imposed on a federal level. Individual states have a little leeway, but not much. Almost all decisions are made on the federal level.

As a consequence, we do not know what alternate approaches would do. We can develop theories about what harms are due to the drug war and what benefits, we can postulate the possible outcomes of legalization, limited legalization, and so on, but we do not know.

Under a federal system, various states could legalize or criminalize as their citizens saw fit. We would then be able to compare the outcomes and decide which policies are harmful and which beneficial. In addition, if you are in disagreement with the laws of your state, and it matters enough to you, you could move to a state where the laws more closely reflect your beliefs. That is an option not available to you today.

2. Abortion: Abortion almost exactly parallels the drug war argument. While some issues related to abortion are not subject to empirical evidence (morality can not be established by empirical evidence) there are a number of other issues surrounding it which can.

Many on both sides argue that abortion either causes or cures any number of social ills. The pro-choice side argues that making abortion illegal will increase child abuse and neglect or will lead to harmful illegal abortions. The pro-life side argues that, besides being immoral, abortion increases societal breakdown in general, increases promiscuity, causes a general indifference towards harming others, and so on. If we return to the 50 states the right to decide for themselves whether or not to criminalize abortion, we will have a chance to determine if either side is correct.

However, in the abortion case, there is another benefit. Abortion was decided on a federal level while the issue was still quite unsettled, leaving us with a bitter battle on the national level. By returning it to the states, we gain two benefits. First, those who care can move to a state which follows their own beliefs, rather than having to live under a single federal regime with which they may or may not agree. Second, the battle will no longer be a single winner-take-all fight, but will become 50 little arguments over abortion, causing a lot less acrimony and allowing for a much less angry nation debate on the question. Perhaps this will one day lead to one side prevailing in all 50 states, but if so, it will happen because of a national consensus, not because one side got 5 votes on the supreme court.

3. Taxes: Under a true federal system, the federal government would once again be funded by the states directly, rather than taxing the citizens themselves. This would mean that each state would be free to enact their own tax schemes.

True we currently have state tax schemes, and huge differences in how the states fund themselves, but the federal taxes so overshadow state ones, that the state tax issues are secondary. If we return federal funding to the states, then state taxes become much more prominent an issue, and we are left with 50 different tax schemes from which to choose. Again, having 50 choices, the flow of people and business will pressure states to adopt the more successful plans of their neighbors, meaning we will see the best tax schemes starting in a single state and slowly spreading to the rest.

In short, we will likely never see real tax reform by changing our federal system, but we will if we decentralize and allow the states to decide for themselves.

4. Pork: A second benefit of the changes in how taxes are collected is that pork will cease to be an issue.** If the states are the source of all federal funds, they will no longer be so eager to receive federal funds. Now, if the feds collect $100 from me and send $50 to my state, my state is $50 to the good. Under a federal scheme, that would translate to my state sending the feds $100 and getting back $50. No state would think that is a good deal.

Of course, some smaller and poorer states would still probably try to get federal schemes passed which took form the richer states and gave to the poor. But considering federal inefficiency and overhead, there would likely be more losers than winners and I doubt such plans would get out of the senate.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the gist.

Yes, the libertarians could eventually win federal office, maybe even get enough votes to enact some or all of their agenda, but I don't think it would be a good thing. Anything done federally can be removed federally, making it a transitory win. Following the libertarian agenda would lead to nothing but a short-lived, ever changing semi-libertarian mess.

No, I am no longer a libertarian. Having looked at all the facts, I can see that federalism, without any additional libertarian reforms, will eventually lead us to a more substantial and lasting libertarian state.

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

* To clarify: While I have many problems with individual planks in libertarian agendas, and with some of the approaches libertarians have adopted, I am speaking here of my only complaint with the core libertarian beliefs. So, while I may object to the groups that want to free murders masquerading as "political prisoners", or may think Libertarians shoot themselves in the foot by leading with drug legalization, those are not part of the core Libertarian philosophy the way this is. If they dropped NORML from their coalition tomorrow, nothing much would really change, but if they renounced attempts to make changes at the federal level it would mark a huge change in their position.

** As I stated in two much earlier posts (here and here), I would like to see states directly appoint senators once again. I think that would make the anti-pork pressure even stronger. But with either appointed or elected senators, I think the change to direct state funding would place very strong pressures to eliminate federal pork.