The Sensible (but temporarily lonely) Libertarian

There has been a great deal of discussion in the past few months about from just where the Tea Party originated.

The slightest bit of research would reveal that the modern movement started with a grass roots group of Ron Paul supporters. The event involved a reenactment of an action by our forefathers. Just as patriots two centuries before had rejected too much taxation and too much government intereference by throwing taxed tea into that city's harbor, modern Ron Paul supporters staged a similar event in 2007. Occasionally an article or newscaster will mention this history, but often it is ignored as analysts ponder whether it has been Sarah Palin or some other borrow and spend neocon who is now the leader of the movement.

It is the mainstreaming of liberty, or really the hijacking and twisting of liberty, and if it were not throwing a monkey wrench into the Administration's plan to spend us into Third World status- I might object.

But I voted for Sharon Angle recently because, as much as I disagree with her on a number of important issues- she is not going to collapse the dollar (at least not as quickly as Harry Reid will try and do it).

So like a lot of the people who originally particpated in the first Tea Party (I sent my money via Ron Paul's campaign site, not being in Boston myself), I have come to tolerate a certain degree of bending of the truth about the history of the movement, while still considering myself a part of it.

It is troubling though to see how the movement has been corrupted by the extremes.

I am referring, of course, to the Bible thumping, hockey kid raising, Palin adoring, abortion hating, mosque fearing, tax cut supporting Tea Party types and the Constitution waving, parents' basement living, Alex Jones listening, ammunition storing, Pope fearing, 16th Amendment questioning Tea Party types.

I am someplace in the middle. It is a position I like to call "the Sensible Libertarian." And it is often a lonely one.

At the center of the Sensible Libertarian's world is the idea that while a return to Constitutional principals is right and necessary, for all of the reasons the parents' basement living types would shout about, we can not move recklessly toward that goal, because we need to preserve an environment which allows kids to play hockey. There must be a slow and reasonable progression toward a truly Constitutional government, but we can not move so quickly as to endanger the American Way. We need to get out of our comfort zone and feel some pain, but not too far out too fast, or feel too much too soon.

Let me throw out some realities, to further distinguish the Sensible Libertarian from the rest of the pack.

The Sensible Libertarian believes the role of the federal government is limited to the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution, and finds it offensive that while the federal government can invent reasons to invade countries without a declaration of war, suspend habeas corpus arbitrarily, and regulate how many shares of stock an individual can short- no one in that same government can find a way to bend the Constitution to build an honorable memorial at Ground Zero. If ever there were a time to ignore the Constitution to step on property rights- and for the record I do not believe there is such a time- it would have been on this issue. Maybe someone in Washington, between lobbing cruise missiles into Baghdad and tossing billions at Bear Stearns, should have compelled the City of New York and the leaseholder to either rebuild the WTC or build a new, in-your-face skyscraper. Instead Dubai has the world's tallest building and we have a "mixed use commercial project" that looks like it should be in downtown Frankfurt. Shameful.

The Sensible Libertarian understands that while the current federal government is too big and needs substantial cuts, there are certain functions the federal government must perform. For example, the collection of tariffs at our borders and enforcement of the 13th Amendment are clearly federal responsibilities. We cannot start letting in Chinese goods for free or start enslaving people again. That would be morally horrific and unconstitutional. Furthermore, there are certain functions the federal government is currently performing which, at least in the short to medium term, must be continued.

Here is a short term one. The federal government has no business subsidizing the "Sister Cities" program, which is that ridiculous program in which US mayors go to foreign cities for an immersion experience and to collect per diem. It should be stopped as soon as possible. But "as soon as possible" in this case would probably mean after a year. While the program is wasteful, it would likely irk foreigners to a perhaps counterproductive degree if we were to just pull out of the program with no notice. So maybe we have to send one more crew of fat cat mayors to Nice for a week next summer. But then we can pull the plug.

And now for a medium term program. The federal government should not be in the business of regulating the drinking age. The feds do this indirectly by threatening to withhold federal highway spending unless states maintain a drinking age of 21. This is Constitutionally objectionable, not to mention a slap in the face of a soldier who returns from a tour in Afghanistan to be told he cannot have a beer. But before we simply revoke that law, there would need to be a transition time, perhaps two to three years, to allow states to economically adjust their enforcement policies to comport with the new lack of intervention from the federal government.

There are even a few federal functions which will need to be continued for the long term- as long as a generation. It will take some study to determine if the Department of Energy can just be shut down. Yes, I understand government studies are expensive and slow and not as effective as the marketplace, but before we simply pull the plug on these massive entities, we need to make certain the gap between the market and the public sector is at least partially filled. There is little room for error with radioactive material.

Even the Department of Education might take a long term transition. Yes federal funding will eventually trickle back to the states to be redistributed more efficiently, but what of the thousands of federal employees laid off from the Department? There, I said it. We cannot just lay off federal employees, even unnecessary ones, without some sort of a plan. There must be a reasonable severance package or you will end up with a bunch of former federal employees clogging Washington's Metro, looking for a place to sleep. More on that shortly.

Now is a good time to mention another axiom of the Sensible Libertarian: the federal government has some pretty sharp people, and they can do some excellent work.

I fear an unchecked bureaucracy and believes that most federal initiatives are inefficient and wasteful. But the federal government does attract a number of patriotic, passionate, gifted, capable people. If these people were utilized only in Constitutionally necessary offices, they would be assets to the national wealth and not liabilities.

Here is a good example. Federal employment since about 1950 has stayed between 3 and 5 million jobs. Even with the explosion in federal spending in the 1960s, the post-Cold War peace dividend, and the recent morbid obesity of the federal debt the number of federal jobs has actually remained fairly stable. Why? Efficient middle-management. Most jobs in the 1950s were clerical, effectively bean counters. The feds have successfully cut those jobs since, replacing the expensive positions with automation. (Of course, a larger amount of work is now outsourced too, so I think the jobs number is slightly misleading. But it has to be accepted that to some degree, federal employees have pursued efficiency. Imagine how efficient they would be if limited only to Constitutional positions?).

The Sensible Libertarian also understands that there needs to be a basic social welfare net. There does not appear to be a Constitutional power given to the federal government to assure this (other than the "common welfare" clause which I would argue was basically dictum, with no real actionable authority). The states and private actors should take on this role. But the transition needs to be, again, a slow one. It would, if nothing else, endanger progress toward true Constitutional government if unemployment were to undermine the very system we currently have.

The Sensible Libertarian respects our past and our Constitution but recognizes a lawful, system exists to make changes to that Constitution. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to tax the income of citizens- this is the clearest example of this. The Sensible Libertarian also realizes that perhaps, but only after the most careful and deliberate consideration, additional amendments are needed.

For example, maybe it is time to add an Amendment requiring all federal matters be carried out in the English language.

The Sensible Libertarian understands that much of what is taking place in the federal government now is unconstitutional, but believes in the strength of our Constitution to fix itself. Amendments are part of this process. Judicial review may or may not be part of it (Sensible Libertarians might disagree amongst themselves on that issue). But most importantly, our system, being one which does not seek to dominate private life- will inevitably bring the people to the conclusion that government is best which governs efficiently and within defined limits.

Of course if we do not move to a more restrained Constitutional government then we will be forced to make cuts without an eye toward what is least damaging. Under that scenario, the hockey kids potentially lose their way of life and the basement dwelling Alex Jones listeners run the risk of losing the system which protects their right to question the President's birth certificate. It is the "everyone loses scenario" and it should be inspiration to bring the two sides together for political victory.

And of course the Sensible Libertarian is the electable libertarian- which is why it likely will not be lonely here for long. In 2007 it felt relatively lonely being the only one around saying "there's too much debt" and "Ron Paul is right" but in 2010, when those ideas are on billboards and being touted by folks from all sides of the political debate- it's rather crowded. I feel like I just stumbled across a few grains of gold at Sutter's Mill. They will be here soon.

Lastly the Sensible Libertarian understands that we have it good. For all of the justifiable complaining about how bloated government is and how we need to make cuts- we are blessed to live in a prosperous (the government might be broke, but most of are not- yet), free, beautiful country which makes the most delicious cheeseburger and thirst quenching cola products in the history of the word. It is a lucky life we lead.

We just need to find a way to, sensibly, keep things that way.