Before the 2008 election, I struggled with choosing a political party. While I agreed with Democrats on a lot of issues, I also agreed with Republicans on a lot of issues. Ron Paul may be the most influential political icon in my life. He may have ran as a Republican, but he has often identified as a Libertarian. It seemed like the answer to me. Libertarians basically believe that the government should be much smaller and ideally focus on solely creating laws and enforcing them. Libertarians couldn't agree on abortion (but it's worth mentioning I'm pro-life), but generally all controversial issues were dealt with by asking the question, "Is it worth shooting someone over it?"
Libertarians acknowledge that no matter the law failure to abide by said law could inevitably result in death depending on how much someone is willing to resist such a law. A speeding ticket may cost a small fine, but if you fail to pay that fine and resist being arrested, it's possible a police officer may have to shoot you. Marijuana and gay marriage become legal because it's not worth shooting someone over; however, schools and infrastructure should be privatized because they are not worth shooting someone over. I never believed in the concept of "taxation is theft" (perhaps a future blog), but I do acknowledge that taxes are taken by force. If taxes were volunteer, I'm sure very few people would pay them although I'm sure those people would still demand government services. I may agree with Libertarians on a many number of issues, but I still can't deny the benefit to society that governmental programs such as public schools have provided.
Of course, I didn't invent Federalism. This concept has been inherent in the United States since its inception. Basically, what I propose is that the federal (national) government be as libertarian as possible, and state and local governments can be more liberal with the latter being the most liberal. This idea of mine became more solid after listening to former FEMA director Michael Brown on the Rubin Report.
The main takeaways that I got from the interview was that the newly created Department of Homeland Security made the response to Hurricane Katrina very catastrophic and why should people in non hurricane prone areas have their tax dollars spent on hurricane preparation. The latter could be expanded to why should anyone pay for something that doesn't affect them?
While I don't know if there is a word for describing my political philosophy at the moment, let me defend this idea. The national government is responsible for foreign policy, national defense, the environment, national taxes, ensuring the rights guaranteed in the constitution, and anything else that makes sense for solely the national government to assume responsibility. The fewer bureaucracies needed to manage those responsibilities, the better. Anything else should be handled at the state and even better at the local level. The main reason for this is because if there is an issue with any government program, it would be much easier to either fix the problem or move away. Plus I still believe that programs at the smallest level are better managed and cost much less. Hurricane Katrina could've been better handled if the response was solely from Louisiana and not dependent on the federal government. Citizens of Louisiana (or maybe New Orleans) may have to pay higher taxes for living in a higher risk area, but that's the cost for living there likewise with Indiana and tornadoes. Controversial issues can be handled in a similar manner. If people really want gay marriages, let states recognize them. Most people agree that fire fighting has been an invaluable government service everywhere, yet -unless I am mistaken- there is no such thing as a national fire department (although FEMA does have some power in this area, it's mostly in the form of grants and research).
One issue I have regarding the 2016 election is the concept of qualifications for the presidency. Many people still argue that President Trump is unqualified for the office. The truth is that I question if anyone is qualified for the office. The executive branch of the United States government has so many responsibilities, I doubt if there's anybody who knows all of them from memory let alone be an expert in all of them. Trump may be very knowledgeable in areas such as trade, but I seriously doubt he is an expert on education or national defense. Essentially the President has to be able to trust his subordinates to fix a problem. We all may recognize that the Department of Veteran's Affairs has its issues, but it takes research to actually figure out the problem and even then it's hard to say whether that research is correct because the President only has so much direct oversight. He cannot for example prove that an entire section is working to maximum efficiency. If the Department of Veteran's Affairs were at the local level, it may be easier to deduce whether the issue is inefficiency or some sort of policy.
Black Panther
While I will avoid any major spoilers, I will discuss major themes throughout the recent Marvel movie Black Panther. If you wish to be avoid any spoilers, I recommend skipping this section.
 |
| I gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars. |
It's very easy to extrapolate Wakanda to be a metaphor for the United States and its role in the world. While the technology gap between the US and the rest of world is no where near Wakanda's, the same cannot be said of our wealth. If we let people into our nation, we bring in their problems (a much better characterization of Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" speech). Should we help those who are oppressed to rise up and defeat their oppressors? Should we try and right the "bigger" wrongs in the world while perhaps ignoring problems at home? These are questions that I am unfortunately still unable to answer with confidence, and I don't think the concept of federalism can simply handle it either.
End of Black Panther discussion
Isolationism may be a tempting philosophy whether it be at the local, state, national, or global level; but it has demonstrably proven to lead to problems as well. World War 2 may not have been such a disaster if the Allied powers came to the defense of countries conquered by Nazi Germany much sooner. Richer nations may not have any vested interest in the plights of poorer nations, but those poorer nations will inevitably resent the richer nations and may one day escalate to violence. This lack of cooperation could explain why most wars happen in the first place. Federalism may answer a lot of political questions, but without cooperation with other people outside of our communities, we are doomed to inevitable conflict.
I've mentioned the concept of "nationalism vs globalism" before many times on this blog as the underlying debate under the current political climate. While Federalism may help define the roles of our government, it really doesn't apply outside of our borders. With that said, I do think that if Federalism were better implemented inside of our borders, a lot of problems would go away. Ideally I would like to see more volunteer outreach like many churches and other charities do, but they can do very little to prevent other nations from shooting at each other. It's too easy to say only have the federal government respond if our borders are attacked, but it's not too easy to say if we should attack another country because it attacked another country. Perhaps someone smarter than me will inevitably come up with a solution to this problem, but regardless, I still think adopting federalism that's more libertarian at the top and becomes more liberal towards the local level is a fairly coherent political philosophy that I think most people would find agreeable and does solve most issues.
Of course making our government behave this way is another matter entirely. The reason why it would be very difficult is because most people will often act outside of their purview in order to obtain power whether for good or for evil, and of course power corrupts.
