Indeed, our government was never designed to do much of anything except provide for the national defense and intentionally decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of coercion in society in order to forestall the emergence of absolutism.
Moreover, the citizenry could watch the political warfare with amusement knowing that whoever gained temporary ascendancy would not matter much to the average citizen since the federal government did not have the power to interfere excessively in the private lives of the citizenry.
And this system of Constitutional Federal Republicanism has been very effective at promoting and protecting civil and political rights over the ages.
However, all this begin to change when statists discovered that our system did not provide sufficient protections against economic coercion from politicians and their cronies bearing preferential tax and regulatory favors for special interest votes and bribes. When the government began to slowly intrude into the private lives of individuals and enterprises by mismanaging and bankrupting retirement, finance, transportation, health care, education, energy, etc. our doom was sealed.
It is necessary to return to founding principles in which the federal govt. did what it was designed to do: protect life, liberty, private property and enforce legal contracts and leave the rest of governing to the individual states.
Indeed, government that governs closest to the people, governs best.
The following is an outline or base blueprint on this change:
Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation
This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.
Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.
The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!
If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.
Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!
This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.
Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.
Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.
Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:
Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies
Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!
Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.
Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!
The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:
1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.
2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.
3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.
4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.
Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!
Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)
Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!
How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?
Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.
This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.
In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.
Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!
This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.
We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.
Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.
Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).
In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.
Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.
This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.
In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!
Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.
This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.
Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.
Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.
Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.
Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.
Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.
To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.
