A Libertarian’s Appeal To Distraught Democrats

I feel your pain. You came to this with what you thought were the best intentions, but you didn’t get what you wanted (I never get what I want). Now, you’re talking about moving to Canada or Spain, or seceding from the Union to live in the world’s sixth largest economy (California). The funny thing is we finally agree, but maybe not in the way you think. Please be patient and I will explain.

If you didn’t already know it, this is what you just found out: a large part of this country – by population, almost exactly half – doesn’t believe what you believe. Democracy is a bargain. You agreed to accept some of their positions and they agreed to accept some of yours. The question is, are you both better off?

You have to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. They have to pay for universal healthcare. You fume over their love of guns and they hate you for forcing them to pay for abortions that violate their religious beliefs. Most of you want to end the drug war. Most of them do not. The list of disagreements is long.

Until now, you may have been under the illusion that there were more of you than there are of them and if you just organize and put in the effort and present your best candidate, etc., etc., you would bring this savage minority to heel, forcing them to abide by your more enlightened views of the world. Now, you know better. There are a lot of them, and the differences in your respective positions are not easily bridged by fact or argument.

Even if you are the majority – which, it now seems, you are not – is it really so easy to force a large minority – a minority almost as large as the majority – to accept such fundamental change? This tyranny of the majority – as they will perceive it – will be a source of friction, defiance, and radicalism into the foreseeable future.

Many of them want their own country, a country based on their laws. And now, so do some of you.
A growing number of Californians want out.

It seems to be a win-win. In terms of federal dollars, they – the other states – take in much more than they pay out, so it’s not like this is going to cost you something. In fact, you’ll save billions. You get to live among people who believe as you do. No surprises at the polls. You will live in a state that will wind up looking more like Sweden or Denmark than America today but that will be fine with the good folks of Nebraska because they, too will have the state they want.

In your state, military budgets will be small and social safety nets will be large. In their states, the opposite will be true. In your state, taxes will be high and there will be many social services. In their states, taxes will be low and most social services will be managed by churches, synagogues, mosques, and charitable organizations. In a well known study, when people were asked to draw their own budget pie, the average of all budgets resulted in something close to the actual budget we have today. In other words, the distribution of expenditures will look very different from state to state but the total expenditures will be close to what we have today.

What about the military? Some states will contribute less than others. When it comes to NATO and other military allies, we seem to be ok with that. It doesn’t stop us from contributing what we think is appropriate, contributing what some would say is too much.

What about free, government funded abortion? You can have it in your state, even if other states do not follow suit. With the money you save on foreign wars, you can give every woman who lives in a state that prohibits abortion free transportation to the publicly funded clinics in your state.

Will there be some laws that still apply to the union? Yes. Murder will be illegal in all states. Passage between states for purposes of commerce or tourism will not be restricted, though some goods that are now allowed in all states will be considered contraband when local laws supersede federal. Use of common resources such as rivers and oceans will be regulated through sustainable cap and trade laws. There are other laws, too many to list here, but far fewer than we have today.

What should be the legitimate dividing line between laws can be allowed to differ from state to state and laws that must be enforced at the federal level? If we can tolerate coexistence – even cooperation – with another country that has these laws today, we can tolerate a state in our union that also chooses to have these laws. This includes differences in taxation and social services, protection for employees, regulation of business practices (that do not involve the exploitation of physical resources shared between states), consensual crime laws (such as prostitution), personal drug use, and many more. These already differ from country to country but are not insurmountable obstacles to trade and cooperation.

What will happen if some states offer inadequate protection to their minorities, women, and members of the LGBT community? I should hope that such folly would be to the ultimate benefit of those states that welcome the oppressed with open arms. The difference in productivity and creativity between the bad states and the good ones will serve as a shining beacon to the magic powers of diversity and tolerance.

Does the above sound palatable to you, enlightened people of this great republic? I, for one, would be much happier living in the above described country than I am living in this one. I am guessing that a sizable minority of you will agree with me. But if you do, this post has a punchline…

Why should it matter which state you physically live in? Why can’t you choose your own virtual state, a state in which every one of us chooses which of these competing laws apply to us? That, my friends, is called libertarianism. Federal laws aside, there is no difference between the above described union of competing states and a state in which each of us chooses how and with whom we wish to cooperate.