Decentralization

To Avoid More Political Violence, Allow Americans To Escape Each Other's Control

Let people join with the like-minded to reject officials and laws that don’t suit them and to construct systems that do.

|

Thousands of National Guard troops patrol the nation's capital as I write, hoping to ensure that the scheduled transition of power from one president to the next comes off without renewed violence. That sightunusual for the United Statesunderlines the fact that millions of Americans no longer support the political system or believe it derives its powers "from the consent of the governed" (as the Declaration of Independence puts it). It also strongly suggests that it's time to try something new if the government under which we live is to be anything better than a resented force at war with much of the population it rules.

The militarization of Washington, D.C., comes after the January 6 storming of the Capitol a shocking event with as-yet to be determined repercussions that was actually supported by a fifth of voters and 45 percent of Republicans, according to post-riot polling. Perhaps that's not as surprising as it should be; well before the ginned-up controversy over the presidential election results, only 24 percent of voters believed the government had the consent of the governed (53 percent disagreed), as reported by a 2018 survey. Maybe the real marvel is that we avoided a January 6-style event for so long.

We've built toward this point for years. While the Trumpists' storming of the Capitol was an unprecedented rejection of the established procedures for transferring power, it built on trends. From the contested, but peaceful, 2000 election, to the boycotting of Trump's 2016 victory by dozens of Democratic members of Congress as other opponents rioted blocks away, Americans have moved toward belief in the legitimacy of elections only if their side wins. At some point, we were going to see an outright refusal to accept a loss, which is what occurred on January 6.

And there's no reason to expect that people will lose their distaste for political defeat in future political contests.

How could Americans be accepting of electoral losses when many view their opponents as immoral and unpatriotic and see them as enemies of the countryto the point that the major factions are defined by their hatreds? "Democrats and Republicans … have grown more contemptuous of opposing partisans for decades, and at similar rates," notes a November 2020 paper on political sectarianism. "Only recently, however, has this aversion exceeded their affection for copartisans."

To a large extent this is because politics has become combat, with election victors using their control of government agencies to torment losers.

"It is more and more dangerous to lose an election," economist John Cochrane, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, wrote in September. "The vanishing ability to lose an election and not be crushed is the core reason for increased partisan vitriol and astounding violation of basic norms on both sides of our political divide."

No sane people would consent to a political system that works as a weapon against them; they would try to escape its power. One of the virtues of the original decentralized American republic and its federalism was that if you didn't like the laws and rulers where you lived, you could go elsewhere.

"Foot voting is still underrated as a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live," George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin wrote in a 2012 paper since expanded into a book. "When people are able to choose their governments, political leaders have stronger incentives to adopt policies that benefit the people, or at least avoid harming them. And the people themselves are able to select the policies they prefer."

The "people" Somin references aren't the amorphous masses discussed in Social Studies classes as marching to the polls to jam the alleged will of the winners down the throats of the losers. He means individuals turning their backs on governing systems they dislike and picking those that better suit them.

But, as Chapman University law professor Tom Bellanother advocate of political choicepoints out in his 2018 book Your Next Government?, "the United States has in recent decades failed to take states' rights seriously, making federal law supreme even in minutely local matters."

Moving does little good when the laws and "vanishing ability to lose an election and not be crushed" (as Cochrane put it) follow you.

Even reviving federalism would accomplish little when many states have larger populations than the whole country did at its founding and the major political divides run not between states or regions, but between urban and rural areas. Within localities are many people who feel trapped by circumstances in "enemy territory," subject to hostile rulers and laws they despise.

How do we make more palatable a political system that functions as a death match between mutually loathing factions who believe themselveswith reasonto be in peril when their enemies win control?

"If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the stateto relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support," Herbert Spencer famously argued in 1851. Fundamentally, Spencer wanted the right to exit that Somin favors, but without the physical migration of foot voting, as a means of making political arrangements more widely acceptable and considerate of liberty.

But Somin not only favors radical decentralization to minimize the costs of migration, he also discusses arrangements whereby "individual citizens can change government service-providers without a physical move." Bell, too, believes that "for the same reason that nation states should and generally do allow the unhappy residents to emigrate, more consent-rich governing services would doubtless guarantee the freedom of citizen-customers to exit to other legal systems" without moving their locations.

In 2001, Swiss economist Bruno Frey proposed what he called functional, overlapping, competing jurisdictionsbasically, governments that people choose among as if picking club memberships.

Frey echoed Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt who, in the 1860 article "Panarchy," advocated a system of non-territorial federalism under which people could freely register their support for, or withdrawal from, any political associations that gain sufficient support. "I hope we can all go on living together wherever we are, or elsewhere, if one likes, but without discord, like brothers, each freely holding his opinions and submitting only to a power personally chosen and accepted," de Puydt wrote.

These proposals expand on Spencer's "right to ignore the state" in empowering people to join with the like-minded not just to reject officials and laws that don't suit them, but to construct systems that do.

Their advocates emphasize existing precedents for choice in government. "People choose between governments every time they choose to live in a new city, state, or country," writes Bell. "Businesses and others are often able to choose for themselves which state's law will govern their dealings with each other, even if they do not actually reside in the state in question," points out Somin.

What if Americans could choose governing systems rather than having them jammed down their throats? They could embrace rules as limited or restrictive as they please, programs and policies that suit their tastes, and officials who resist treating election to office as opportunities to punish enemies. If dissatisfied, they could exit one system and choose anotherjust as they can now, but without having to shoulder the hassle and expense of loading a rental truck and driving across a border. Tensions might ease and violence become less likely if people who hold each other's values and lifestyles in contempt didn't have to fear government as a bludgeon in the hands of their enemies.

True, American politics has been moving away from allowing exit in recent years, centralizing power so that people can't escape and even attempting to continue taxing those who flee, as California lawmakers propose. But the result has been battles between rebellious localities and higher authorities. And now troops patrol the streets of the nation's capital because nobody is willing to lose elections.

We can have a future of increasing conflict between Americans who hate each other. Or we can make it easier for people to peacefully escape each other's control.

NEXT: Goodbye, Trump. Hello, War on Domestic Terror.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You do comprehend the policy goals of the party that will control the elected branches of government? Allowing anyone to escape their control is definitely no one of them.

    1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…… Detail Of Work

      1. Let people join with the like-minded to reject officials and laws that don’t suit them and to construct systems that do.

        Yes Yes Yes! Looks like this might be a good reason article!

        Americans have moved toward belief in the legitimacy of elections only if their side wins. At some point, we were going to see an outright refusal to accept a loss, which is what occurred on January 6.

        Yes! That's right! I wonder why that is!

        To a large extent this is because politics has become combat, with election victors using their control of government agencies to torment losers.

        Getting closer! It's not just that are tormenting the losers intentionally. Sometimes it's unintentional with their horrible tyrant policies!

        No sane people would consent to a political system that works as a weapon against them; they would try to escape its power. One of the virtues of the original decentralized American republic and its federalism was that if you didn’t like the laws and rulers where you lived, you could go elsewhere.

        Oh sweet fuck! I heard the word "federalism." This is article is turning out to be a giant block of gold!

        The “people” Somin references aren’t the amorphous masses discussed in Social Studies classes as marching to the polls to jam the alleged will of the winners down the throats of the losers. He means individuals turning their backs on governing systems they dislike and picking those that better suit them.

        https://news.pypeline.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Jack-Nicholson-nodding-gif.gif

        But, as Chapman University law professor Tom Bell—another advocate of political choice—points out in his 2018 book Your Next Government?, “the United States has in recent decades failed to take states’ rights seriously, making federal law supreme even in minutely local matters.”

        OMG. This is starting to turn out to be the greatest article ever written on reason.com.

        In 2001, Swiss economist Bruno Frey proposed what he called functional, overlapping, competing jurisdictions—basically, governments that people choose among as if picking club memberships.

        Da Fuck?!!! What the fuck! We were going in the right direction. Then it’s like we fell into an acid trip and got lost. Fuck! You see, this is why you libertarians need to pull your dick out of those prostitutes and get off the drugs. Fuck!

        If dissatisfied, they could exit one system and choose another—just as they can now, but without having to shoulder the hassle and expense of loading a rental truck and driving across a border.

        What is this? LSD? Shrooms? Nutmeg? This is not going to work at all. These people haven’t thought this out.

        Scenarios:
        Imagine a guy breaks into your house and starts stealing your shit. Your about to blast him in the face with your Biden style shotgun, when he says, wait! - you can't do that! I'm a member of the "so-and-so" political faction and theft is legalized in our political faction when that person has nothing to eat.

        Imagine you come home and a guy with boils all over his naked ass is pumping and dumping into your 14 year old daughter. You grab your secret stash of chloroform or ketamine in preparation for a weeks worth of torture followed by dissolving a body in a giant plastic drum of sodium hydroxide, when all of a sudden he say's, "wait! I'm a member of "so-and-so" political faction and it is legal for us to smash the vaj of 14 year olds!"

        I think you can see where I am going with this. No. You can't have a chaotic mess of different political factions, with different ideological philosophies, and moral leans in the same area. There has to me a common moral framework among them. And the laws have to reflect that common moral framework. Alexander Hamilton had good ideas regarding federalism. He knew eventually factions would disseminate into their own peoples, their own cultures. Frey and Puydt is a chaotic mess of forced libertarianism. Where focus is on the individual. It's not going to work. At all. Examples above. That said, a libertarian system would be best, but it must do so voluntarily. And the issue at heart is - to have so much freedom - requires a society that is very very high quality. They need to be strict in principles, in morals, in their judgments and most of all, tolerant of others. That's NOT us. Okay. We were closer to that in 1793, than today. Today people are literally voting to take your stuff. Today, people are extremely intolerant, and want a law for every little thing. So - libertarianism in a nutshell: Alfred Whitehead and his reference to plato:

        “The creation of the world — said Plato — is the victory of persuasion over force… Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals…

        “Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.”

        And the fact is - Our culture here in the US has greatly divided. A great scism has opened and this separates us. You would think we would have converged and become homogenous across time here in the US. Yet no - we diverged. And no one is trying to persuade anyone in today's life, they are trying to seize government control and weaponize it as a spear tip for their cultural crusade. Obvious solution to me is secession. Secession strips the federal government of their powers over people. States rights are where it's at, and where it should be. A return of power to the states is needed. Yes. Right wing states will get more right wing. And left wing states will get more left wing. And there will be an exodus in both where people will migrate to a state more like them. It's not perfect. But it's better than the now.

        1. “You grab your secret stash of chloroform or ketamine in preparation for a weeks worth of torture followed by dissolving a body in a giant plastic drum of sodium hydroxide…”

          My man… Finally…. Don’t forget the heat source and venting.

          “Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals…”

          And when one of the groups is perversely determined to end the notion of civilization…you get the struggle we find ourselves in now.

          Secession—assuming it’s allowed—means migration. Look to India’s Partition for the likely human cost of replicating that here.

          1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy HTW is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

            Give it a shot on following website……..READ MORE

        2. I liked the article. I see where your response is coming from, but I took it as a regional basis, not an individual/sect basis. More of a “weed is legal in this county” sort of thing. Like what we have now, only moreso. It’s probably the best article I’ve read on reason, and I hope there are more to follow!

          1. And I took it as meaning exactly what it said.

            “If dissatisfied, they could exit one system and choose another—just as they can now, but without having to shoulder the hassle and expense of loading a rental truck and driving across a border.”

            Moving to a different county is still moving. And out west, it can mean moving quite a long distance.

            1. Oh, yep, guess I didn’t read carefully enough.

        3. So you’ve tried nutmeg?

    2. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months bhmjj and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months vjgfd and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

    4. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home.RFVcde Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…… Visit……….Home Profit System

    5. The idiots who write for Reason helped elect the Marxist scum who will rule them.

      Fucking morons.

      1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to fiinish… It’s a fllexible job but a good
        eaning opportunity………Visit……….Home Profit System

    6. It’s bemusing to see Reason authors come out with headlines like this when they consistently shill and disseminate for the left.

      1. I don’t know how they can publish this shit and expect to be taken at all seriously. Especially while simultaneously puking out a steady stream of TDS articles.

        Every delusion has a breaking point. I wonder how bad it has to get under Usurper Biden before it breaks for the writers at Reason.

      2. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish…RDCtgv It’s a flexible job but a good
        eaning opportunity……… Visit……….Home Profit System

    7. This was, in fact, an incredibly stupid article.

      The whole *point* is to make those mouth breathers do what their betters want. Whichever side happens to be which at the moment.

    8. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link………..INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    9. While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them, my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail…….INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    10. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regularSAQ office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. That’s the whole problem. A significant portion of Americans don’t want the rest of us to escape their control.

    1. Oh yeah, and guess which side you were on for the last five years.

      1. The side that wanted section 702 of the FISA act repealed.

        1. LOL

          Yea, their deep throated support for the whole Russia hoax and IC totes proves their real preferences were anti FISA…

    2. that goes for all of the mono-party people. only a few “crazy” libertarians would ever support such a thing.

      1. Keep telling yourself that it’s everyone else’s fault, and only you are virtuous.
        Hasn’t worked for 50 years, but you’re due!

        1. I blame San Andrea.

          1. You can always find fault with her

    3. I remember every bit of the last four years. I don’t want peace with the progressives. I want payback and pushback.

      If the democrats want peace, they can surrender the presidency back to the legitimate winner, Trump. That would be a start.

      1. No way, Mark Thrust, Sexus Ranger! If the GOP wants peace, they’ll have to accept the fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 POTUS Election fair, square, and legally, and to not set up any more insurrections in the Capitol, the way they did on January 6th. That was just plain dangerous, disgraceful, and disgusting. The Insurrection participants went way the hell beyond what was and is acceptable expression of thought.

        Attempting to overthrow a legally won POTUS Election (i. e. the 2020 Election of Biden as President of the United States), causing lawmakers to flee in fear of their lives while they were in the middle of certifying the 2020 POTUS Election, and getting at least five people killed, and others arrested was totally against democracy is supposed to operate. If anybody will turn the United States into a third-world shithole it’ll be your party that’ll do that, NOT the Democrats.

        1. Biden is not legitimate. Period. The events in the capitol were unfortunate, but minor compared to the last eight months. It was also pointless.

          If democrats want peace, Biden and Harris should relinquish the presidency back to the rightfully elected president, which is Trump. Anything else is treason.

          That would be a start. At this point, the democrat party has proven itself to be a domestic terror organization and an existential threat to the republic. It needs to go.

        2. But he didn’t win “fair, square and legally.” We all know this, just some want to pretend otherwise. The media certainly know this, that’s why they are working to silence election skepticism.
          And please spare us the pearl clutching over the Capitol melee. You actually were concerned that a man cosplaying as a buffalo was about to seize power? For over five months we witnesses leftist terrorists attacking average Americans, destroying their livelihoods, assaulting and in some cases murdering them. This was done with the approval of Democrat officials, including Kamala Harris, who promoted a fund to bail out the terrorists.

  3. Even reviving federalism would accomplish little when many states have larger populations than the whole country did at its founding and the major political divides run not between states or regions, but between urban and rural areas.

    You’re just not thinking big (or is it small) enough. Yes, revive federalism, but not just at the national level. Remove power from Washington of course, but don’t give it to Austin, Sacramento, Albany, and Denver. Give it right back to the towns and counties themselves. Or better yet, get rid of it completely, because Spencer was completely correct.

    1. +

    2. The only solution is to dissolve the country as the empires in Britain and the Soviet Union have already done in recent years. Spinning off the overseas territories and the 4 largest states would be a good start: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, California, Florida, and New York.

      1. I’m all in on FLexit

        1. Texit has a nice ring too.

          1. NJection.

            A heaping dose of federalism will have the added benefit of increasing pluralism in the individual states as well. I really doubt CA would be as much of a party-state if the state officers couldn’t turn every election into Obama v. Trump.

          2. I’m seriously considering moving to Texas.

      2. The only solution is to remove all democrats from government and expatriate the inveterate progressives forever. No separating the country.

        Progressives don’t get on goddamned square foot of our republic.

    3. Half a loaf is better than none. There are differences among the states that go beyond urban/rural divides. E.g., city dwellers in California and Mississippi have different attitudes. More federalism would help.

      Furthermore, states need not be revolutionary to devolve power within states. States differ in how they organized local governments, but all the states with which I am familiar have different local governing structures that could receive more of the state’s powers and responsibilities to govern according to local preferences. E.g., in states that have counties and cities, there currently already are different local regulations between county land that is not incorporated into a city and city land.

    4. So..the liberal college town has legal weed but if a student walks over the line to buy a soda with it in his pocket he gets thrown in that county jail? The town with the least libertarian rules will end up ruling because neighbors won’t want to get in trouble.

  4. “To Avoid More Political Violence, Allow Americans to Escape Each Other’s Control”

    The only way to avoid political violence in America is to move out of, and stop visiting, Democrat controlled cities where left wing Mayors and City Councils have invited, encouraged, participated in and then defended violent and racist BLM/Antifa anti-police riots.

    Unfortunately for honesty and freedom, Reason supported and defended the political violence in American cities all summer long, and now falsely portrays (like other lefty propagandists) the mostly peaceful protest in DC by Trump supporters on Jan 6 as evil.

    1. Disaffected, anti-social, deluded, whining, gullible right-wing clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      You get to whimper all you wish, clingers, but you will comply. Reckoning begins tomorrow.

      1. Gecko.

      2. Stick with your stupidly named raspberrydinners sock.

      3. You and your desire to crush people that are the target of your bigotry are exactly the problem that the OP describes. It’s you and your kind that’s the problem here, not the so-called “clingers”. They just want to be left alone.

        You whine about Trump’s fascism, but it’s you that’s the fascist.

      4. You get to whimper all you wish, clingers, but you will comply. Reckoning begins tomorrow.

        I suspect Cato and Metellus Scipio said something quite similar right before Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

        1. Cato was a bitch

        2. I had read elsewhere, but it sounds about right, that it took Francisco Franco five years of trying to work with the Spanish Republic before he decided to throw in with the Phalangists and Nationalists. Point is, we might be waiting awhile—and things to get a great deal worse—before Caesar gets here.

          And we might think ourselves lucky if we did end up with a Franco instead of the monster it certainly could end up being.

          1. Hitler aside (mostly because I don’t want a classification pissing match), the rightist dictators seem to leave a much healthier civil society in their wakes compared to the leftist ones.

            Compare/contrast Pinochet/Franco with, say, Castro or Velasco.

            1. Portugal’s Salazar is an interesting one to read about too.

            2. Wait… Hitler – the National Socialist Party Guy – was a rightist?

              I mean, all hate for the dictators and for one-party rule but calling Hitler a rightist makes such distinctions as Right and Left meaningless.

              And, sure – Pinochet’s One-Way Black Helicopter Rides, Inc. was surely both healthy and civil.

      5. Arty, you’re allowed to live as long as Americans like me permit it.

        Don’t ever think otherwise. Every day you live to see another sunrise is because of our generosity.

      6. At least you’re honest about your fascist tendencies. The only comforting thought is your progs will get squashed by the same authoritarianism you all support, no matter how much pandering and virtue-signaling you do. Until then you can break out your new knee-pads and bottles of lotion.

    2. And Republicans who want to control everything else? Your partisanship is showing.

  5. To a large extent this is because politics has become combat, with election victors using their control of government agencies to torment losers.

    Trump tormented the commies by capping their SALT deductions and disempowering colleges from denying due process for students accused of sexual misconduct.

    1. Is that line really in there?

      What was the split on Republicans to Democrats that were arrested/indicted/investigated for bogus, politically motivated charges in the Trump era? Something like 100 to 0? It seems like Republicans just can’t seem to get this “tormenting their political enemies” thing right.

      1. ★ Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page .. TAP ON HERE USA JOB INFO

  6. SleepyJoe will solve this problem.
    With more troops.

    1. Haven’t you heard? The National Guard can’t be trusted because it’s mostly comprised of white men!

      1. The National Guard can’t be trusted because it’s mostly comprised of white men!

        Time to deputize antifa/ BLM members then. Just make sure and give them nice, snazzy looking uniforms with brown shirts. And designed by Hugo Boss, naturally.

        1. https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1351426661342982145?s=19

          Just look at some of these replies to his video asking them to join an “army” to out, punish and treat conservatives like terrorists for holding different views. These people have lost their minds. This is what genocidal regimes historically push at the start with propaganda.

  7. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  8. There isn’t a Democrat in a position of power who cares what we think anymore–and they have all the power.

    Who is the audience for this article?

    1. “Who is the audience for this article?”

      The audience is existing libertarians, but also the broader public, most of whom are not libertarians. It is to make a case for decentralized government and libertarian principles to people who may not know much or anything about those ideas.

      The audience is not this comment section of hardcore politicos that read and obsess over this every day, which a lot of people here apparently do not realize.

      1. “The audience is existing libertarians, but also the broader public, most of whom are not libertarians.”

        My point is that what those people think does not matter anymore, and it won’t matter for at least another two years. The reason our opinions don’t matter anymore is because there isn’t anyone in a position of power who cares what we think anymore.

        The Democrat leadership, far as I can tell, has no intention of facing another election, and the ideology of the Democrats in power hold the opinions of average people in contempt.

        I’m being a little conservative in my estimate of the Democrats in power when I say they don’t care what average Americans think of their policies anymore. In reality, many of their policies are about forcing average Americans to do things against their will, but they aren’t merely indifferent to public opinion. They want to force the American people to do things against their will–because their progressive policies are unpopular.

        The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a war on guns, etc., etc.–the reason progressives push so hard to inflict these “solutions” on us using the coercive power of government is because those policies are so unpopular. That’s what authoritarianism is all about–forcing people to do things against their will that often because they are unpopular.

        We’re in the early stages of the Hugo Chavez regime. He may have won an election, but who describes his rule or Venezuela as a democracy anymore? Regardless of whether popularity greased his skids at some point, the Chavistas didn’t really care whether their policies were popular, and the progressives don’t either.

        We are living under an authoritarian regime with an authoritarian ideology that does not value public opinion as anything but an expedient. Encouraging the American people to believe that their opinions matter in that context is tantamount to collaborating with an authoritarian regime. If you want to do something with public opinion, help them come to terms with the authoritarian nature of the single-party government we’re about to suffer.

        And the first step in that effort is not telling people that their opinions matter to the government. They don’t, and they won’t for at least the next two years. The Democratic party is the enemy of average Americans, they’re treating average Americans like Al Qaeda, and we are doing a great disservice to the American people by promoting a delusion that the Democrats care what the American people think anymore.

        1. Did our opinions matter to any politicians before? I never got that sense. But you have to try to convince people, I guess.

          1. They mattered when politicians were afraid of what might happen to them in the next election if they did this, that, or the other thing.

            Pelosi is retiring from the Speaker’s chair in 2022.

            Biden will not be running a traditional post-pandemic, crisscross the country on a speaking tour campaign at the age of 82.

            They’re on a kamikaze mission.

            Meanwhile, the ideology of the Democrats is not only dismissive of public opinion but downright hostile towards what the people want–and I’m not kidding. The reason they want to impose the Green New Deal and other things on you using the coercive power of government is because we don’t want it.

            Feel that in your heart. Know it. Live it.

            And if that weren’t enough, they’re censoring the opinions of average Americans from social media, deplatforming whole platforms specifically to prevent average Americans from organizing another protest, and are treating average Americans like Al Qaeda. The poll I saw said that 70% of Republicans believe that the election count wasn’t free and fair, and if they’re treating 70% of Republicans as “insurrectionists”, then how can we conclude that they aren’t treating average Americans like terrorists?

            Meanwhile, the U.S. government and the Democratic party are now the same thing.

            Within that context, what business do we have feeding the American people a bullshit delusion about how their opinions matter?

            I realize there’s a little bit of a lag, here, because Biden isn’t actually in the White House yet, and the Democrats haven’t officially taken over the senate. Come back tomorrow?

            Yes, this is very different from the way it used to be. Trump couldn’t even get ObamaCare repealed because of internal party dissent. The biggest victims of the Tea Party were establishment Republicans in the primaries. There isn’t anything like that happening under the Democrats.

            1. There is no more debate. It’s a street fight, metaphorically speaking. Stiffs like Romney and McConnell are in the way. Brush them off and kick the shit out of the democrats at every opportunity.

            2. Ken, you are actually underestimating the problem. I think for the near term that the opportunity to vote out the Democrats has passed.

              1) The Dems have relaxed voting rules enough to make it easy to “fudge” elections in their favor.
              2) They will also begin “importing voters” by relaxing immigration rules and using making it easier for undocumented immigrants to vote (see #1 above)
              3) The Democratic congress can grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, strengthening their hold on the senate.
              4) A Democratic controlled senate can pack the courts, thus rendering the constitution null and void at their good pleasure.
              It’s pretty much “checkmate” at least until the Democratic coalition self destructs.

              1. Why should we wait for them to fuck up? They have committed treason. They should be removed. Period.

                If things get ugly, that’s on them.

                1. NO, Mark Thrust, Sexus Ranger!!

                  If things get uglier than they’ve already gotten, it’ll be on YOU and the GOP, NOT us!

                  1. No, you and your friends already made things uglier to the tune of billions of dollars in property damage and hundreds of lives lost last year across the country.

                    You have every opportunity to own up to what you’ve done and back off. If you choose to advance your communist agenda we will not submit. Ultimately, if you progressives attempt to murder Americans, we will resist.

                    Feel free to choke our rivers with your dead.

        2. Whether or not they intend to face another election or not, they will. In two years. And the odds are it will remove them from control of the entire government.

          And you’re forgetting the control that their opponents have in the states.

          It would have been nice to have the protection of gridlock provided by winning something in Georgia, but your boy Trump’s fee-fees were hurt because he got his ass kicked. Any progressive stuff that does get through over the next couple of years is a part of Trump’s legacy.

          1. “Whether or not they intend to face another election or not, they will. In two years.”

            Please see the specifics above.

            Pelosi has no fear of losing the Speaker’s chair after the next election because Pelosi is retiring from the Speaker’s chair (at the very least) before the next Speaker is chosen in 2022.

            In the meantime, the biggest threat to Pelosi’s leadership is that the squad and other radical progressives throw her out for being insufficiently radical. She has nothing to lose. She’s going kamikaze.

            Biden is too old to campaign in 2024.

          2. And here we see the most useful of fucking idiots.

            1. Elections and the courts have failed us. More is now required.

          3. “And the odds are it will remove them from control of the entire government.”

            Have you neither watched the events of the prior two months, nor read of Biden’s first planned EOs? The Senate was going D in 22 regardless.

            “Path-to-citizenship,” whether or not the eight years track for it mentioned by Biden’s people actually happens or not, means 11, to God knows how many, million additional people will get to vote. Every poll I’ve ever seen says they vote 55-45 D at a minimum, and usually 2 or 3 to 1 D. Their admission to citizenship ends any chance of Republican control, and any hint of small-government or Libertarian leanings, for either legislative house or for the Presidency.

            Electoral cheating or not.

        3. I think that you dramatically understate the power that a minority party can wield. I would have preferred split government myself, but it’s not as if every Republican vote is now useless.

          And two years is not much time, in fact, this idea that every election presupposes an apocalypse, and that it’s either win right now or literally die, does not much help out system.

          1. So you missed 2020?

            Denial and faith in “norms” isn’t going to save you.

        4. Correct, Ken.

      2. But no one else is reading this – – – – – –

        1. ^This^

          How many “normies” actually read articles on reason.com? I highly doubt that it’s a hugely popular news source for anyone outside of people who are already libertarians or “libertarian curious.” No one who gets the bulk of their news from CNN or MSNBC (or Fox News or Breitbart for that matter) are swinging by good ol’ reason.com for an alternative take.

          1. I assume they must have a lot more readers than the comment section. We sure as hell aren’t their target audience at this point. And I know several fairly normal people who do check it out from time to time.

          2. What we say to each other is usually very important. The arguments average people make in favor of cannabis legalization, for instance, mimic the arguments only libertarians were making for years.

            My point is that this normal process has been interrupted by the unusually authoritarian nature of the incoming government, which not only has no regard for public opinion but also holds it in special contempt as if that were a virtue.

            Before we can get people to vote out this unusually authoritarian government, we need to make it clear to them that this incoming government is unconcerned with the opinions of average people.

            Over time, our opinions matter.

            The policies that will be implemented over the next 100 days will be largely unaffected by that. Two years from now, maybe we can take the government back–if we get enough of our fellow Americans to understand the level to which Democrat politicians hold their opinions in contempt.

      3. How many people who don’t follow politics come to a relatively obscure publication like Reason? Is it a lot? I’m asking seriously.

  9. Foot voting is a fantasy. Or maybe all those ultra-right-wing conservatives living in CA and NY must be prisioners in their own homes.

    People don’t move to match politic with preference. They move for money or weather. There are plenty of CA conservatives that HATE, HATE HATE their state govt’s liberal policies but nevertheless remain in CA. Those that do purposefully leave CA (or NY), leave for money…(not better work but lower taxes), see Ichan, Musk, Trump, Ellison, etc.

    For these people, issues like criminal justice, health insurance, gun regulation, gay marraige, lax abortion laws, etc. mean less then nothing to them. They may have an opinion on the matter, but by virtue of their wealth, their personal freedom is unconstrained.

    1. I left California 25 years ago because I hated the politics and many others in Colorado did the same thing. The low standard of living in California drives most even out of the state and some of those leaving are Democrats.

      1. I’m sure there are plenty of cases like yours, but I think his point still mostly stands. Jobs and environment are much bigger factors than politics in where people choose to live. And many people are also attached to the place they call home and are generally not inclined to move somewhere far away.

      2. And those democrats move and vote in more evil retards that turn their new state into flaming piles of shit. (literally in LA and SF) because they don’t understand that their policies are the cause of their failures, but they lack the intelligence and capability to look inward and realize that their failures are their own doing, so instead they spread out and do the same thing. They are more of a cancer than an ideology

      3. … And look what has happened to Colorado.

  10. I’m not exactly clear on how say the teetotalers are supposed to be able to ban drugs in their communities while letting sane folk not ban drugs in their communities, when those separate communities are geographically the same.

    Or how anti-gunners are supposed to get their 2a infringements without forcing their neighbors to follow that same set of rules.

    These things seem like fundamental contradictions. Or is this meant to be a way to get more liberal governance (good) by tricking people (bad) into thinking they can still keep their illiberal restrictions that are *fundamentally about limiting other people*? That seems like something that can’t end well.

    1. “Or how anti-gunners are supposed to get their 2a infringements without forcing their neighbors to follow that same set of rules.”

      Easy: let those who wish to drink, drink. Let those who wish to own firearms, own them. If some of those who drink or own firearms abuse their right to the detriment of others, then they stand to lose the right to drink or own firearms.

      1. Easy: let those who wish to drink, drink. Let those who wish to own firearms, own them. If some of those who drink or own firearms abuse their right to the detriment of others, then they stand to lose the right to drink or own firearms.

        It’s easy to see how this appeals to libertarians. But the argument is supposed to appeal to others. The offer is supposedly that they can live like they want to. But when you’re asked literally the first question about it your response is that they can live like libertarians want to live.

        I don’t expect this to find much success.

      2. “Live and let live” is anathema to progressivism, which has consumed nearly all of the left

    2. It’s called minding your own business. OF course that does not fit in with the progressive worldview at all. The problem is the same as there always is for libertarians. How do you convince people to mind their own business and not feel a need to fix everyone else.

      1. Marshal is right. If people wish to drink, let them. If they wish to own firearms, let them. If, on the other hand, they abuse the right to either drink and/or own firearms
        and that abuse of alcohol and/or firearms results in harm to other people, then the right to drink and/or own firearms must be taken away from the owner(s).

    3. “I’m not exactly clear on how say the teetotalers are supposed to be able to ban drugs in their communities while letting sane folk not ban drugs in their communities, when those separate communities are geographically the same.” — If I understand correctly, devolution of government power within a state would not allow this. Instead, the local governments of different areas within a state would have more power to determine local laws, and the state government would impose fewer laws over the entire state. If you didn’t like the laws passed by your local government, you could move away from them more easily than you could move away from a state or the country. This would not be perfect, but it probably would be better.

  11. …to the boycotting of Trump’s 2016 victory by dozens of Democratic members of Congress as other opponents rioted blocks away…

    THIS IS DIFFERENT. That was just some limousines being spray painted or something, citizens showing their displeasure at having been duped by Putin into voting for someone other than a handpicked establishment known. This was a well-planned assault on our very republic: the central leadership in Washington DC, the very foundation of our daily lives (for some reason), and was coordinated by the very outgoing Putin strongman we were innocently protesting last time.

    Okay, this got away from me but I’m too tired to edit it so sue me.

    1. But, yes, if Trump didn’t convince the left that central power is too easily co-opted, and all the left-controlled levers of power haven’t convinced the right (and MAGA) the same, then there’s no hope anyone will realize it’s a good idea to weaken what’s been fortified beyond design.

      1. Eventually, it will collapse under it’s own weight and burn to the ground giving us an opportunity to start over from scratch.

        1. Worked out real well for the people under Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Will kick in any day now in China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran too…

          1. I said eventually. No, I don’t think that’s going to be all that soon, certainly not in my lifetime.

            1. Then what is this “us” you mention, if we’re all going to be dead by the time this opportunity to start over takes place?

              These changes we want to see as libertarians, aren’t going to just happen. We’ll need to work towards them, and stopping this trend the United States government and Ruling Class have pushed, is a big part of that work.

      2. It is the nature of any government to grow and expand until it consumes everything. The only way to control this is to build in a self destruct and periodically start over from scratch.

    2. This was a well-planned assault on our very republic

      One of those rioting commoners even sat in Lindsey Graham’s seat! HIS seat! Can you imagine such a dishonor being visited upon you?

      1. And they were so stupid that the insurrection was carried out by unarmed revolutionaries – someone had to use a fire extinguisher found on site to commit a murder.

        1. I hear the Eagles picked him up off of the waiver wire.

    3. I heard a cop on a capitol riot video saying: “please, guys. This is a sacred space. Could you go somewhere else?”

      “Sacred space?”

      I can’t relate to the cult that is the new clergy. I just can’t.

      1. So we pray to the east
        We pray to the west
        And we see the gods of the new church
        As they undertake their vow
        Tell me who can save us now?
        Save us from the lords of the new church

        Any opportunity to link to an obscure Tamsin Archer song.

  12. As in so many things, California lawmakers take their lead from German socialists of the 1930s, including the idea of Reichsfluchtsteuer, the tax that Jews had to pay before being allowed to leave Germany. California is a one-party state controlled by a metropolitan elite that do not know or care where their food comes from, so long as it is presented artfully and is said to be artisanal. They plan to make rural life almost impossible.

  13. “Silence is violence.” You may not care for politics, but you will be made to care. It is your duty as a citizen to care, none of this extreme individualism for you. Whether it’s systematic racism, climate change, problematic capitalism, fighting the heteronormative patriarchy, income redistribution in a socially conscious manner – nobody is allowed to just stand on the sidelines. You’ve benefited from centuries of this bullshit, you must be forced to denounce your privilege. And don’t think that’s enough, reparations are due. Everything you have is due to the sufferings of others, centuries of suffering. Everything you have is a pittance compared to what you owe. If you grovel hard enough, perhaps we’ll allow you, your children, and your children’s children for a hundred generations the mercy of being allowed to continue to exist as a slave. Perhaps.

    1. Nope. I realize what you are posting is satire.. but they can take my guns and everything I EARNED one bullet at a time.

      The Left is looney tunes if they think that that Socialism – Shite will fly in THIS country, with THIS Demographic at THIS time.

      1. They got away with the lockdowns and peaceful protests.

        1. In blue states. They burned one cop car in my city and the DA charged them with terrorism.

      2. Who are you trying to kid? They voted for it.

  14. Good advice (in the headline), but it’s not the progressive way to allow people to escape their control.

  15. Good idea, but we’re gonna try the “boot stamping on a human face” for a while.

  16. How about we just move all the socialists to CA, HI, OR, WA and create the new nation of Oceania?
    Relocate the displaced individualists among the existing income tax free states, and get on with life?

    1. Hey, that’s my idea. CA/OR/WA become Leftopia. Good wrinkle to add HI. I was sure it would happen if Biden hadn’t been declared the winner by the AP.

      1. HI is as left as the rest, so why not?
        The name Oceania just fits on so many levels – – – – – – – – – –

  17. Abolish the federal government would be a good start. I think it’s time. Of course there is a 0% chance that it will happen. But I can dream.

  18. We can have a future of increasing conflict between Americans who hate each other. Or we can make it easier for people to peacefully escape each other’s control.

    It really is a wonderful article; And it’s WAY OVER DUE time everyone stops pretending Federal Politicians are suppose to be Gov-God Saviors of every State, County, City and Person…

    It was created to be bounded by the U.S. Constitution and mostly for National Defense. Not to make *entitlements* by the color of skin, or what part is in your crotch or stealing and distributing labor (i.e. National Slavery).

    Ironically; President Trump WAS one of very few who GOT this and as demonstrated multiple times wanted to LEAVE the will of State, County, City and People ALONE!!!!

    Yet The Democratic National Socialist Party doesn’t seem to want to leave ANYONE alone. Biden has “PLANS” many “PLANS” to dictate and rule and diminish dissent JUST like a HITLER-II. It’s rather wishful and unfounded desire to pretend the left could JUST LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE unless they’re deemed the Constitution Authority on the subject at hand.

    I talk amongst lefties all the time; They ALL have this idea that they need to be able to DICTATE all people because people are too stupid to live their own lives. Most of it’s just an emotional reaction to feeling insignificant ( frankly; it’s mostly because they want to be LAZY and don’t want to do anything with their own lives ).. They use POWER over others to feel significant instead of *earning* it by becoming VALUABLE.

    1. There will be no BDS at Reason. Too gauche.

    2. Careful with the radom all caps. You flirting with sqrls territory

    3. At the heart of leftism lies resentment and extreme malice.
      Their utopian instinct is to inflict harm on others, not prosperity for all.

    4. Frankly, I think the Right does the same thing, and they have the attitude that everybody should think like they do, and that people are too stupid to lead their own lives. That’s total BS.

      1. The Right-Side has done a lot of the same things. Thus the term RINO for Republican Politicians who defy their own party platform and follow the DNC’s party platform instead.

        The GOP platform is well written and disdain’s UN-Constitutional legislation like every American *should*. The People should be behind “The People’s” Supreme law over their government. It’s the very foundation of the USA and path to it’s self-proclaimed Individual Liberty and Justice. Those who take a sworn oath should honor that; even by legal consequences. It’s part of the defense of the USA’S founding that “The Peoples” law is the Supreme Law.

        However; that Supreme Law doesn’t allow legislation to *force* Americans to believe what they should be believing in.

  19. The troops are not there because anyone honestly fears violence. They are there because Biden was really NOT elected — and wants anyone who boos or heckles him to be dealt with summarily. Biden is going to be the dictator of a banana republic, and having troops around to do those things is what dictators of banana republics do.

    1. They are there because Biden was really NOT elected

      The troops are there because overkill is consistent with what Dems want people to believe. This is all theater.

      1. It’s both a show of force and narrative building for the totalitarianism and persecution to come.
        It is the theater of an illegitimate dictator Soviet.
        That’s the toughest part – Biden and Harris are unimportant, just props.

    2. Umm fellas. Biden is not the president yet.

      From wiki

      The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief for the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the Secretary of Defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard.

  20. But don’t you see? When they engage in political violence it is called rioting, insurrection, and terrorism but when we engage in political violence it’s a mostly peaceful protest that wasn’t nearly as bad as that time they did something. Our people do it because they are taking a stand against injustice and the powerful interests which seek to destroy them. They do it because they are deranged criminals enthralled devious masterminds who wish to destroy us.

    1. I am certain that you have it confused.. when EITHER side does it, it is called “rioting, insurrection, and terrorism”…

      the Left simply doesn’t like to call it that in their virtue signaling echo chamber.
      the MILLIONS of Burn-Loot-Murder and the Facisist actors from ‘antifa’ are no different from the few hundred Trump supporters who stormed the Capital Building.

    2. Well there is a jurisdiction issue. The feds can call in troops only to protect federal property which they did briefly. The governor controls his national guards and totally mismanaged the situation in Portland. The president is commander in chief of DC National guards.

      Personally I am appalled by both situations. It is not so much a matter of why the thugs were doing what they were doing. It is what thugs do. It was the job of law enforcement to keep it from happening.

      It seems that the DC police screwed up initially. They were offered help in advance and did not take it. They set up a flimsy defense. They had the mission to defend congress and the Vice President in session and totally failed.

      This is a false argument. Just because Portland failed does not make it ok for DC to fail. Ya know what was bad? Watts, Kristallnacht, hundreds of other examples. One does not excuse the other.

      I come from flyover country. This crap does not happen there. We have work to do, families to take care of. The Browns lost (ok no big surprise there) We have this covid thing whatever you think of it. That is bad enough.

      Rant over.

  21. For the last four years Trump has been the enemy that must be confronted.

    Now it’s nebulous concern about all of government. Which will accomplish nothing.

    Other than the authors not being ostracized by their proggy friends.

  22. It would be a better world if we all would cooperate peacefully and live and let live.

    1. Amazing that your words were never needed before.

      Oh, wait….

  23. Allowing Americans to “escape each other’s control” would defeat the entire purpose of political power. They’ve spent the last 100 years or so, ever since the start of the “Progressive Era” building the federal government into the massive, powerful leviathan that it is today specifically to use it to control other people’s lives down to the minutest detail. Why would they give that up now?

    1. Yet apparently Trump was despised for deregulation and tax cuts, the very opposite of growing control mentioned in the article.

      1. Toosilly thinks nobody has noticed that this publication has gone all in in service to the oligarchs.

        Forgive me if I find his ‘credibility’ lacking.

  24. I’ve always liked that quote from J.Q. Adams. Too bad the U.S. hasn’t abided by that policy in over a century.

    1. Oops. That was meant to go in the comments for this piece.

  25. “To Avoid More Political Violence, Allow Americans to Escape Each Other’s Control”

    Here is a big problem with Spenser’s “Right to Ignore the State” and de Puydt’s (how do you pronounce that?) idea of “Panarchy”:

    What incentive do existing governments have to voluntarily adopt running on a basis of voluntary subscription?

    Why should governments concern themselves with the requests of voluntary subscribers when they have entire Cities, Burroughs, Counties, States, Provinces, Nation-States, and Empires of human pawns to control and extort at their beck and call?

    And how would Spenser and de Puydt deal with world-aspiring rulers who want “Rome to have a single neck” (Nero,) who want their followers to “Bring me the horizon” (Genghis Khan,) who lament that there’s “no more worlds left to conquer” (Alexander The Great?) Why would they care whether subission to them is voluntary as long as they have it?

    And what about Totalitarian religions and ideologies with the self-professed goal of the entire Planet under submission to someone either Natural or Supernatural (Christianity, Islam, Nazism, Marxist-Leninist Communism, United Nations One-Worldism?) Voluntary consent never mattered to them in the past, so why would it now?

    Without any plan to get there, “Panarchy” is basically saying: “Government, abolish thyself.”

    As for “The Right to Ignore the State,” it’s like a cab driver told me about defensive driving: “There’s ‘right,’ and there’s ‘dead right.'”

    Please do better, 2Chilly. The world needs it now more than ever.

    1. Sorry, I should have spelled Herbert’s name “Spencer.”

      Now see there: Self-correction only works with individuals who admit the ability to err and who care. Not so much with the ilk who love power and think they can do no wrong.

  26. One reason the Presidency is such a hot issue is because Congress has abdicated their job to make laws and passed it on the the regulatory state controlled by the President. This goes back to President Washington and the failure of Congress to pick a new site for an arsenal. They left it to the President, then complained bitterly about his choice! And yes, the author is right – too many issues have been improperly decided at the Federal level, robbing States of their rights. Voting with your feet now no longer works.

    1. Why has Congress done that? Because they get to escape accountability. The President is a single person, and for good and bad, people tend to seek a single leader in which to invest both their hopes and fears about government. The paradox shows itself every two years when the vast majority of Congress is reelected despite Congress always having abysmal approval ratings.

      If you really, really want to know why the separation of powers isn’t working, it is because they aren’t really separate when the President is the de facto leader of his party. Congressmen and women are happy to follow their President and allow him to take the risks, knowing that they can share in any successes.

      Libertarians may think they like it when Congress is held by the President’s opposition party, believing that gridlock is better than a unified federal government expanding its power. But gridlock doesn’t limit the expansion of federal power. It just makes the expansion of federal power happen incompetently as the President and Congress try and get around each other or a switch in party control of one or the other branches results in a lurch in the opposite direction.

      Voters and our political leaders are in a feedback loop with each other. The angrier that voters get about government dysfunction the more they respond to populist candidates promising simple solutions to fix it all without compromising that either can’t pass or wouldn’t fix jack shit. The more of those candidates that win, the more partisan and thus more dysfunctional government becomes.

  27. It’s because way way too much power has been install into one person. The presidency is too powerful.

    It’s not Trump’s fault. He inherited it all from Obama. And it wasn’t Obama’s fault. He inherited from Bush. Who inherited it form Clinton. All the way back to FDR and beyond. It’s not a Democrat thing, it’s not a Republican thing. It’s mostly Congress who passes on the buck or looks the other way when presidents flex too much. And it’s all the voters’ fault for accepting it.

    Any use of an executive order beyond a purely administrative function should be impeachable. But we’re decades beyond that point, a century beyond it. We now have the situation where Schumer is telling Biden to ignore Congress and just issue executive orders.

    It’s like Democrats thought Obama would live forever with infinite terms. It’s like Republicans thought Trump would live forever with infinite terms. The pendulum has swung again with zero learning. The Democrats will imagine Biden living forever with infinite terms, and will be shocked, shocked, when a Republican retakes the White House as the Right cheers at his every flex.

    We are doomed.

    1. Or perhaps not.

      On a daily basis, other than taxes, the federal government hardly affects me. The traffic problem on rt.8, the trash collection, schools for the family kiddos, things like that are more important.

  28. There was this nitwit “insurrectionist” who enters the Senate chamber and says “we might as well set up a government while here.”

    A moron. And that’s the guy Tucille thinks has figured it all out. Tucille really hopes those nitwits were more successful. And contrary to what he thinks, both sides don’t do it…one does. Republicans.

    Back in the day this website was all about that “great” libertarian experiment in Grafton, NH. Article after article about how great it was going to be. Individual choices to health care, garbage collection, safety…that’s the ticket! Now? They never talk about it anymore. Why? It was a disaster. Garbage all over.

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/september-october-2020/libertarians-took-control-of-this-small-town-it-didnt-end-well/

    But that’s Tucille. He loved that Swedish approach to the pandemic…herd immunity. Funny, he never brings it up anymore. Because it was a disaster and they’ve scrapped it. But that’s Tucille…

    1. You are very wrong about Sweden. They are still no worse than many European countries that have had all kind of lockdowns and masks and everything. Yes, Swede’s are susceptible to panic based on misleading numbers as well. That doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right approach in the beginning. The apparent size of the current wave of deaths has a lot more to do with how testing is done and how deaths are counted than anything. And this is apparent if you look at overall mortality numbers.

      1. Nobody wants to look at total mortality rates because they reveal that covid is a nothingburger for people below retirement age.

        1. Nobody wants to look at total mortality rates because they reveal that covid is a nothingburger for people below retirement age.

          I look forward to you saying that, in person, to the face of every single person who lost a father, mother, child, or sibling under the age of 65 to COVID. That’s the families and other loved ones of around 60,000 people from what I can find. And, of course, people are still likely to miss those 65+ that died years if not decades before they otherwise would have, as well.

          Perhaps what you really think is that COVID has been a “nothingburger” to you compared to the inconveniences you’ve experienced?

          1. I’ll do it now. I’m sorry about your loved one, but old people die. Frequently. Viral pneumonias kill many of them, and SARS-CoV2 is just another viral pneumonia. Total infection/fatality ratio of something like 0.2 percent, and probably less than that. Rough on the 70+ set (6-ish percent for the 70 year olds and higher for the 80+), but again, lots of things are.

            Absolutely, in no way, shape, or form was this disease worth all of the drama and willful economic destruction that resulted from the politically motivated responses to this disease. COVID has been a nothing compared to that.

    2. The entire article was look at this town and what they did in the 1980s 90s and up to 2008.(the last was a resident had child porn charges, weird that jaklan Ace aka buttplug is against that with his posting child porn links in the past). The author then says because this libritarian town is kooky, people all over the country need to get rid of their stupid idea of individual rights and civil liberties because pandemic scarry, in a breakneck turn of subjects. The article is right around 4th grade reading/comprehention/logic so perfect for jackland

      1. The author also acknowledged that the libritarian never actually got any political power in the town

    3. Meanwhile, your fellow travelers in New York and California are dropping dead like flies, and the remainder are fleeing to red states that still have a nominal presence of personal choice in place. Of course, anywhere your kind aggregates eventually turns into a decadent, third-world quality shithole, so in about 20 years those places will be equally crappy.

    4. The most misunderstood term thrown around these days is herd immunity.

      It is not immunity at all. It is a theory derived from veterinary medicine in the 1920s. Later in the age of vaccines it was adapted to apply to the question of what percent of the population needs to be vaccinated for diseases like measles for example. Well all of them should but it still comes out from time to time.

      Thing is every pathogen is different. They can also change over time as this one is already doing. They each produce a different challenge which must be studied and understood.

      Every infection or vaccine is different. The goal is to eradicate the virus to the point where we do not have a big problem with it. You need powerful weapons to do that. It looks like we may have them but we do not have all the answers yet.

      There are many infectious diseases we have controlled but not destroyed.

      The enemy is the virus. Think like a warrior. Kill it.

  29. This is really stupid. Basically this is about allowing one to chose what laws they fallow and which ones they don’t. How would this work in practice? A business wants to ignore environmental laws and dump raw sewage into the local river, but the residents who live near the river would surly object. A cafe owner decides to not pay their workers at all, and have them rely only on tips. An office boss decides to ignore workplace laws and base promotions on who gives the best blow jobs.
    I agree that we should do away with victimless crimes, but most laws there there for a reason, and that reason is there to protect the weak against the strong.

    1. This is the thing where you can no longer tell the difference between sincerity and parody. It makes no sense that anybody ignorant enough to post such drivel would be reading an article at Reason, let alone posting regularly in the comments.

      The examples are not remotely logical. The first is a violation of property rights going back to biblical times, the second and the third can be dismissed as nonsense in any scenario without forced labor.

      Then there is this gem:

      most laws there there for a reason, and that reason is there to protect the weak against the strong.

      WTF? That sounds like something a 15 year old girl would get 1/2 credit for writing as an answer on a social studies exam.

      1. Liberals read “All I Needed To Know I Learned in Kindergarten,” and mistakenly thought that was the stage where emotional and intellectual development needed to cease.

      2. All of the examples that I have mentioned have happened in the US and were stopped by laws and regulations. The pollution one was very common for most of US history and “property rights”. The pay one is not about forced labor at all, it has happened many times that businesses did not pay a wage and the employee was entirely dependent on tips or commissions.

        We think these are absurd now only because very few of us or old enough to remember when they happened or are well versed in labor history.

        1. Thanks for the laugh.

          I particularly liked the “property rights” in quotes like it is an ill defined or invented concept and the use of the ‘royal we’ when insulting readers’ knowledge of labor history.

          Not paying wages to tip earners means the tip earners have no reportable income, which means the law is less about protecting tip earners and more about holding them accountable for taxes. It is 100% AOK with the Department of Labor and in every state to pay commissioned salespeople no salary.

          Either your parody misses the point or you don’t know what the fuck you are babbling on about. Not to say that those things are mutually exclusive.

          1. I meant to write that “property rights” as a legal concept did not stop the pollution, but the Clean Water Act did. And many businesses do report tips to the IRS. Also commissioned salespeople are subject to minimum wage and overtime laws.

            1. many businesses do report tips to the IRS

              Which sucks for the people who work for tips. The law punishes them, under the guise of protecting them. Tips could just as easily be classified as gifts and ignored by the IRS.

              Also commissioned salespeople are subject to minimum wage and overtime laws.

              You can absolutely 100% pay salespeople commission only, no minimum salary, no minimum hourly wage, no overtime.

              https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17f-overtime-outside-sales

              Do you need me to also cite specific determinations issued by the DoL, or are you embarrassed enough already?

              Some of us regularly review labor laws as part of our job, instead of relying on the memory of a class we had to take in college to satisfy a requirement, like you seem to be. Please do enlighten us on how the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire lead to the creation of OSHA next, you insufferable dumbass.

              1. A “commissioned salespeople” is not the same thing as an “outside sales employee”. They can overlap, but not always. I was thinking more like car sales or electronics store. In those cases minimum wage and overtime do apply.

                The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is a solid example of why regulations are needed. The owners did not care one bit about their employees. While it did not lead directly to OSHA, it did create regulations and institutions that were the precursors to OSHA.

                1. [Narrator:] As MollyGodiva hit submit, there was a susurration, air swirling inward to fill the newly created vacuum as the cumulative weight of the bullshit on the internet reached critical mass and collapsed in on itself. The newly formed black hole was a void in which an infinite amount of information could be poured, only to vanish from the rational universe. Nothing would ever return from that dark abyss.

    2. I’m pretty sure we all choose which laws we will follow and which we won’t now. All of the bad things you mention happen now.

    3. “chose what laws they fallow”

      I agree, there shouldn’t be a choice. All new laws should come with an automatic a sunset clause in the range of 3 – 5 years, that forces them to be renewed or not.

  30. The LEFT can’t exist without people who are subjugated and await instructions from ON HIGH to do ANYTHING. If you have ever driven in California and seen the way that sheeple behave at 4-way stops you will understand what I am talking about. These people are sheeple, their leaders are power hungry panderers who only exist to put the yoke on someone. THIS will end badly.. the Left is too self-absorbed to even know it is looming… maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but the RESET is coming.

  31. Gee, ya think?

    “it’s time to try something new”

    The newest thing on the block is the decentralized government that the founders set up with the sovereign, independent states becoming part of a voluntary union. The general government was supposed to be very limited and if it overstepped, the remedy was for states to simply ignore or nullify its dictates.

    What we have occurring ever since then, but especially now, is just a reversion back to the old ideas, the ancient forms of tyranny and despotism. Remember that when people try to say you’re stuck in the past if you advocate a “return” to what is actually new and fresh compared to what they are offering.

    “Even reviving federalism would accomplish little when many states have larger populations than the whole country did at its founding and the major political divides run not between states or regions, but between urban and rural areas. ”

    Wrong. How can you be so obtuse as to not see that the problem as it stands now, with imperial D.C. consolidating power over the states and the world, is at least 1,000x worse than it would be if states made their own decisions ??

    One of the benefits of this “solution,” or at least step in the right direction of returning to the original idea, is that it’s right in front of your face. We already have states and state governments. Authors like this almost seem like they are actively trying to undermine and block any remediation of the problem they are ostensibly lamenting. They are far more interested in appearing smart and edgy.

  32. This is one of the most libertarian things I’ve ever read here, and also one of the dumbest, and those are not unrelated.

    “reject officials and laws that don’t suit them”

    How lovely. Does that apply to people you want off your lawn, or just people who want to build golf courses on top of poor people in peace?

    1. To me, what it means is that, if I think the law is in the spirit of someone being an asshole, I consider myself free to ignore it.

      For example, I don’t murder people, but I also feel like it’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it.

      1. In fact, I think the two are very related: The whole reason it’s wrong to kill me is that it’s my body, not yours. So when does it become OK for you to imprison me because I ingested something you disapprove of? It doesn’t in any consistent way.

        When a law violates the basic principles of the ethics it’s built upon, I ignore it.

      2. That’s fine, but the way law works is that you get thrown in a cage if you break it, whether you agree or not. Many criminals object to their arrest for various reasons, no doubt.

        Picking and choosing which law you want to follow is guns and games until you start telling other people what laws they have to follow too, like don’t steal your shit or murder you. It’s kind of a social contract, unless you just want to be a tyrant. And don’t we all.

        1. Yeah, I know what sometimes happens when people break the law. Thanks.

          I make a commitment to never tell anyone to follow a law that I don’t follow myself.

          Social contract: is that one of those self-serving fictions people come up with?

          1. Now you’re getting it.

        2. Social contracts.

          Where did I sign?

          Social contracts as Rawls posited are mere abstractions to justify state control over the individual. It is a way to posit that having been born into a state structure I would or should have made the same choices.

          No matter where you go with that those choices are made by some official elected or not. Justice is then morally arbitrary and based on popular demand. Beware because some civil rights you take for granted can be taken away under such a basis.

          This is where social contract fails because it assumes that individuals do not have rights. The good of society does as decided by good people with good intentions.

          1. So defy the state. Nothing stopping you but all the guys with guns.

    2. This also seems very consistent with your proposal that ethics are just self-serving fictions we invent for ourselves.

      If that’s true, then why shouldn’t I decide that I’m only really obligated to obey the laws I find most agreeable?

      I would think that would be the point of a self-serving fiction.

      1. You can decide that. You can decide you’re a genderless unicorn from Mars too. If the things we merely decided we wanted happened, I would live in a castle right now.

        Do you libertarians appreciate the fact, deep down, that you have to actually share this planet with other people?

        1. Can you explain to me why I’m obligated to obey a law you can’t enforce?

          1. You’re not.

        2. You seem to be implying that some self-serving fictions or more true than others. This seems completely inconsistent.

        3. Yes Tony we do. Living with the non aggression principle, the golden rule if you will is not easy. If nobody owes you anything, not love, respect, income, nothing. It means you have to earn those things. You have to give them to receive them back.

          If you wanted to live in a castle then you could have devoted your life to making as much money as possible. We do not all choose that.

    3. How is following unjust laws better?

      In fact, one could argue the only reason unjust laws get repealed is because people choose to violate them. The prosecution of those crimes leads to public outcry over how unjust the law is.

      Justice is subjective of course, but since all of us violate some number of laws on any given day it’s pretty clear that at least some of our laws are objectively unjust, how else could you criminalize literally everyone who lives here? You’re just arguing about which laws people choose to ignore, not the concept of ignoring them.

      1. How can justice be subjective and injustice be objective at the same time?

        1. Read.

          I can call it objectively unjust when literally everyone in the country is a criminal. We all have different interpretations, but I don’t think any sane person thinks a system that criminalizes every last citizen is just.

          1. True, but at that point, there’s at least some concept of justice that is objective.

            1. I think none of this would work without a shared intuition of fairness, which is very biological, but it also evolves massively with time and changing circumstances. The idea of fairness applying to anyone outside your own tribe has nothing to do with human biology and everything to do with adapting that biology to an agricultural and high-population environment.

              What makes humans a special animal is our ability to use communication and ideas to adapt. Justice will evolve along with us, and thankfully there’s plenty of evidence that it can and does evolve to a more sophisticated place, as long as our bellies are full.

              1. You talk a lot about things you claim are self-serving fictions we choose.

                Why should I care about fairness beyond my own self-interest?

                1. You shouldn’t do anything. Consider there to always be an understood “if you care about your dignity” attached to my advice.

      2. Anyone is welcome to protest an unjust law. Usually it means you go to jail for a while, where there’s plenty of free time to write a manifesto. But there are historical giants who followed that model, including King and Mandela.

        1. Hitler also followed that model.

          1. Glad someone’s paying attention.

  33. This sounds like what this article is saying is we should all join tribes and be subject to the laws only of our tribal council, so the Trumpers who stormed the Capitol would not be guilty if the Trump tribe didn’t consider it a crime, neither would antifa for any of their assaults or property destruction unless the Antifa tribe considered those crimes. You can guess what will happen next.

    1. It is an interesting kind of thought experiment. To get it to work you would need all kinds of reciprocity agreements which eventually takes you back full circle.

      We already have tribes we just call them countries now. Watch peoples heads explode when Biden gives amnesty to all those immigrants.

  34. It is amazing how subtle and insidious the conversion to totalitarian government can be.

    Was reading about Klaus Barbie the Frenchman who became SS and committed horrible atrocities. The Nazis actually had many supporters in France. He was just being a good Frenchman in his mind.

    In the years leading up to WW2 many in France became convinced that there were two enemies, the communists and the Jews. So in cooperating with the Nazis they were just helping to purge the country of these two evils. It was a gradual process.

    To attain power you need to induce fear. That is how our system works. Dems fear republicans and vice versa. That is how they win elections. Most people vote against someone nor for someone. It is the ultimate betrayal of the self.

    Libertarians understand the limitations of government which is why we want to limit the power of government.

    1. Limited government in the sense you’re talking about doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with public spending as a percentage of GDP, for example. It’s what preoccupies our system of government already, for good or ill: separation of powers.

      Libertarians often miss the simple insight of the founders, that people are terrible, and they will seize power if there’s a power vacuum, and if you would never do that, all the better for the sociopath down the road who would.

      Limited government has rarely meant, in practice, more checks and balances to mitigate the problem of elected or unelected people having too much power. At best we had some norms and traditions that were all just exploded on the alter of some guy’s psychological problems. But it has certainly always meant less public spending on poor people!

      It doesn’t matter what percentage of GDP government takes up if any asshole can take it over and call himself king. All the rest of the stuff you want is policy, and people are allowed to disagree with that, no matter the structure of government.

      1. It has a great deal to do with spending. It has a great deal to do with the powers granted to the elected.

        I know you do not understand the power of the individual nor the responsibility that goes with it. Ya think the government is the economy and arbiter of individual rights.

        1. As opposed to which other arbiter? Sky Grandpa? Individuals asserting things into the wind?

  35. “Thousands of National Guard troops patrol the nation’s capital as I write, hoping to ensure that the scheduled transition of power from one president to the next comes off without renewed violence.”

    Nope. Democrats hoping this bit of political theater will keep their constituents living in fear and allowing more of their rights to be taken away.

    1. ^ this

      The Guard are there to reinforce that, contrary to what we may have been taught about the Constitution as a limit on the government, anything not expressly allowed under law is prohibited.

  36. Just some random thoughts.

    It is instructive to look at a US map at county level resolution with pub counties in red and dem counties in red. It is obvious the split is urban/rural. Even in deep red states there are blue areas around the big cities and university towns. There have multiple instances where state level gun restrictions have been bashed by county and city LEOs in rural areas who blatantly refused to enforce them.

    There have been multiple analyses showing if you remove Detroit, Chicago, LA, and New Orleans the US gun death rate is actually on par, or better, than European countries. Again state level resolution gives a much different result than county level resolution that takes into account the urban/rural split.

    Back when the US Constitution was written not only were states much smaller but there was much less of an urban/rural split. Lets also remember how VA became VA and WVA due to ideology. It may be time to not only move towards more federalism but also change the shape of states. As an example Florida could easily be split into four (or more states). Miami has little in common with the rest of the state and say Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties could form a state. The panhandle and Jax South to Gainsville could form another state. The I4 corridor could make up a third and the Keys (don’t get me started on how the Conch Republic is a world unto itself) and the SW Florida retirement community could make up another state. Maybe even more of a split up is possible. While I have lived in Florida all my life so I have better insight there I am sure there are plenty of others who could come up with similar plans for other states.

    1. No, I’ve proposed something similar. Colorado should be allowed to break up along sectional lines, as should red states like Texas, Wyoming, or South Dakota. Texas should be split into Houston, the Rio Grande Valley, the Dallas-Austin corridor, and the rest of the state. Colorado should split along the Front Range-to-mountain town corridor, Pueblo-San Luis Valley, Western Slope, and Eastern Plains/northern Colorado. Wyoming should be Jackson, Laramie, and the rest of the state. In Montana, do a Missoula-to-Bozeman strip separated from the rest of the state. Let the Indian Reservations be their own states.

      We really need more representation in Congress, not less. What we have now isn’t cutting it.

      1. I can get behind that, along with a renewed commitment to federalism. This article by Tuchille is wishcasting though. Nothing this new regime has planned has anything to do with tolerance or acknowledging the benefits of federalism. Rather, the people giving Biden his orders have seen what life is like in Latin American countries, and they’ve decided they want some of that.

        Luxury condos and a lifestyle this side of Star Trek for a very, very few; favelas for most of the rest. It is about to get very, very ugly here, and there’s nowhere left to run.

    2. I don’t know if more representation is the best solution to the problem of highly incompetent representatives. I like the idea but it rubs me the wrong way. At some point, splitting some of these states will only maintain the impasse we see today. Who cares if you split SW Florida from Miami? SW will elect Hannity, Miami will elect a super gay Latinx or someone from the Heat, and they’ll balance each other out.

    3. Just because you live outside a big city doesn’t mean it’s rural. 80% of the population lives in urban areas which means connected to a city or town.

    4. In the founding era, urban areas hadn’t even really been invented yet, especially not here.

      No doubt there is a ton of utility in letting people in a certain environment choose their own rules. The federal government shouldn’t be choosing your local street party regulations. But it properly has jurisdiction for problems that aren’t confined to a local jurisdiction, and that’s more than any libertarian will admit to, since physics and modernity don’t work how they wish they would. You can set a rule for your local beach, but what if it affects beach erosion in someone else’s town?

      Local control is a practical concern, but it doesn’t really have much to do with concerns about tyranny. The federal government has intervened on multiple occasions when local governments oppressed their people a little too much. The federal standards usurping local standards was a positive for individual liberty when it got rid of segregation.

      And that’s pretty much the single thing smal-government people have been complaining about the whole time. You have to watch to make sure they abide by a minimum standard. Hopefully that standard is written by good people and not evil people.

  37. Anecdotal, offers a glimmer of positive hope. I went to a local grocer in western Colorado today and was talking to the cashier ( a fifty somethingish Mexican women, now proud US citizen ). She asked me how I was doing (OK) I asked her. She says people are getting scared. I thought oh white supremacy, COVID, violence. I ask Of what? She says, and I quote “Prices going up, you know groceries, gas, our water bill, heat”. I was stunned that the local migrant community with English as a second language, a cashier, gets where Socialism will lead us..hyperinflation. I said we will see and have a good one.

    Working Latinos aren’t BUYING INTO THIS SOCIALIST SHIT. Latinos make up 70percent of all new small business startups.

    1. Yeah, but western Colorado is a lot more conservative than the yuppie comm-symp Gen-Xers and Millennials living in the Denver metro area.

      1. Denver That’s the influx of financiers and tech and bringing in the intersectional brain washed. Wealthy white kids/cronies who want the SALT deduction back before they dismantle TABOR for the working and middle class.. Philly: working class black, Puerto Rican and white voted for Trump. Never thought I’d see that, as I grew up across the River in south NJ.

  38. This looks like as good a time and place as any to remind everyone once again that Reason’s very own Matt Welch openly and gleefully advocates for killing conservatives on his Twitter feed.

    1. Now is a good time to remind Welch that they’ll come for him. Jack Ma was a member of the CCP and rumor has it he is laying low, really fucking low.

      1. Minus six feet low, likely. Head of what? Alibaba? And squashed like a fucking bug.

  39. The reason you see these problems is because we’ve already been subverted. You don’t need to brainwash an entire country to create this sort of absolutism. All you need is to win half the country, which the Soviets did with the modern Democrat party, to convince them that they are morally superior and that it is their destiny to correct injustices by force. Once you do that, you’re no longer able to deal with them in good faith. Eventually you become aware of this reality and must deal with them in similar fashion.

    We keep pretending that our current political nightmare is the result of rhetoric, but the die was cast decades ago. We should have listened to McCarthy when we had the chance.

    1. Murder all the people who disagree with you, that’ll achieve paradise.

      If your team didn’t want to be blackballed as the morally inferior option, they really shouldn’t have stormed the capitol with rednecks to overturn a fair election and proved that supposition very right.

      1. That’s funny because the Drms lost seats in the House and has the slimmest margin ever. BTW we all know it was an Antifa false flag operation at the Capitol there’s plenty of video proving it that is of course being suppressed by Big Tech and the MSM. Nice try though.

        1. Of course it was.

          “Antifa did it” is Trumper speak for “Yeah I guess that looked pretty bad for us.”

          1. Right because Antifa rioted and burned down cities all last year while not so much as a can was left on the ground at Trump rallies but all of a sudden it was Trump supporters breaking the windows out at the Capitol because we all know conservatives love destruction. Give it me a break.

          2. BTW I’m a libertarian. I didn’t vote for Trump. I’ve never voted because there’s never been anyone worth voting for. No doubt you voted for Biden so let what’s coming be on your head.

            1. Blame is just a story we tell ourselves.

              1. No it’s being held responsible for your actions. I know how much you commies hate that.

                1. You can’t shoot yourself 400,000 times to make up for all the people whose painful deaths you endorsed in order to keep yourself from admitting Trump might be a terrible politician.

      2. If your team didn’t want to be blackballed as the morally inferior option

        Maybe they’re just not bothered by your self-serving fictions.

      3. Funny because that’s exactly what Democrats have done for decades, just in reverse. You don’t have to kill your opponents if you just import more teammates.

        Only a partisan would try to tie the riot to Trump. It makes zero sense that any of us would want a riot to occur when it seemed at that point damned near impossible for anyone to hear Trump’s election challenges, never mind to support reforms or an investigation. He is still eligible for a second term and may choose to run for office, which is now in jeopardy because of impeachment plus the media hitjob against him.

  40. Ayn Rand explained years ago that competing governments in the same geographical area won’t work.
    https://fee.org/articles/the-nature-of-government-by-ayn-rand/

  41. perhaps its time to go back to the Articles of Confederation? Let states form compacts with like-minded states. the federal government would only exist for national defense…..

    1. All we have to do is prohibit government from initiating force.

    2. Ironically that proposal isn’t even the Articles of Confederation but is the U.S. Constitution. National Defense and National Regulations IS pretty much the only enumerated powers of the federal government.

  42. OK, one more time: NEITHER party has ANY authority. NONE.
    If you want to see functional, responsive, non divisive government, there’s an easy solution: Break the two parties into tiny little pieces.

    We have broken up AT&T, and are considering breaking up Google (an excellent idea), so why are just two megaparties allowed to have a strangle hold on every government in America?

    1. How do you propose we “break up” the GOP and Democratic Party? Put a cap on how many people can vote for a candidate of a given party? A cap on how many people can register with one? Nothing in the Constitution is stopping anyone from trying to build a new party or expand an existing minor party. That is, nothing explicit in the Constitution does this. History has shown us what happens to attempts to go beyond the two-party model, though. (Bull Moose Party, Reform Party, Dixiecrats)

      We have two viable parties instead of more than that because of the structure of our government and how legislators are chosen. You’d have to change the Constitution and drastically rearrange things in order to break the two-party system. Our government is simply not set up to give any incentive to people to vote for a party that doesn’t have a chance at a majority other than those willing to vote out of total frustration and protest. Plurality victory in single-member districts makes having more than two viable candidates completely undesirable. Three candidates with significant support makes it possible, even likely, that the two of them that are closest to each other will split the vote and allow the third candidate to win. As the number of viable candidates increase, so does the likelihood of ending up with the victor being the one that can best appeal to a single, but large, voting bloc.

      We’re basically stuck with a two-party system unless drastic changes are made to how elections are run. Ranked-choice voting is probably the one thing that might do it that wouldn’t require an amendment to the Constitution.

      1. How do you propose we “break up” the GOP and Democratic Party?

        Multi-seat proportional districts.

        Ranked-choice voting is probably the one thing that might do it that wouldn’t require an amendment to the Constitution.

        (Assuming we’re talking about federal offices only) For the senate, sure.

        But the House? Naw, any given state could swap over to multi-seat proportional districts anytime they want.

  43. OP: “To Avoid More Political Violence, Allow Americans To Escape Each Other’s Control.
    Let people join with the like-minded to reject officials and laws that don’t suit them and to construct systems that do.”

    Both of the above are excellent expressions of what most regard as libertarianism. If only the OP stopped there.

    The problem with our elections was not about the system, but about the people who we rely on. Some Judges schemed and some failed to do their duty, but that is a reflection on those judges, not the system. Some legislators went overboard in allowing more than half the electorate in some states to vote by mail. The lax controls on voter rolls and mail in ballots made it impossible to verify that every vote that was counted was legitimate.

    People did not storm the capitol because they reject the US Constitution, they protested and some stormed because they thought the elections were fraudulent. The marxists who carried out most of the other demonstrations over the last year do in fact want to tear down the constitution, but they sure as hell would not replace it with a more libertarian form.

    We can have foot voting WITHIN our nation. Persons who do not like the laws in their particular state or locality can move to another. Rather than tear down what we have, it would make more sense to separate into a greater number of states so as to allow more choices. If foot voting cannot work within our nation, how could we expect it to work globally without a global government which is able to control every nation to the same extent that our federal government controls the various states right now?

    Those who want to live in a commune can certainly do so in our free country, as long as they can find others who agree with them and who are willing to join in that effort. Even commies can have the utopia they dream of, odd that very few actually do so.

    There is nothing wrong with our system that people of good will cannot make right, and there is no system that can survive unrestrained evil.

    1. Mike, I agree. Americans in virtually all Democrat strongholds are moving in RECORD numbers OUT of their control.

      California is very much aware of that. By way of proof to what you said here, CA is already preparing wealth taxes AGAINST wealthy people who leave, essentially FOLLOWING them with a “moving” tax liability.

      I highly doubt this is “Constitutional.” But Democrats have virtually destroyed the Constitution. Free speech is already almost dead,

      By way of advice, I would NOT SUGGEST that you openly speak of anything that connotes political violence.

      I believe there will soon be “squads impaneled” to search your posts, and put you on a “no-fly” list and not allow you to use airlines.

      I’m not saying you did this.But you had better “watch” your posting. Authorities may already be doing it.

      Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  44. The South tried that and Lincoln murdered a bunch of them.

  45. I disagree with one of the premises of the article that “moving does no good. We again suffer from what I call the “journalist demand for perfection” syndrome. Just because a solution isn’t perfect does not mean it will fail.

    People are already MOVING in massive numbers. Soon Biden will be OPENING our borders to massively illegal immigration and require US to pay more taxes to support them.

    Biden has already dropped the “notion” of new countrywide shutdowns. He got the message: Americans of both political parties won’t f****n do it. So he backed down.

    Separating ourselves into TWO separate countries has, in a real sense, already started.

    I could be wrong but it is gathering momentum and it may be impossible to stop it.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  46. “He means individuals turning their backs on governing systems they dislike and picking those that better suit them.”

    Which is why the Democrats are demonizing #WalkAway and trying to crush the movement. The *worst thing* any Democrat can ever do is truly leave the Democratic Party. Evidence provided by their gushing vitriol towards Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, and most recently, Donald Trump.

    What I’d be for is a ‘legislative wall’ around any metro area of 100,000 or more people. Inside the ‘wall’ they get to pass all the stupid garbage laws they want, but it doesn’t affect people on the outside, and all the funding for it must come from inside the ‘wall’.

    Why do this? Because what we have across the USA are big cities that have garnered the lion’s share of their State legislatures and those majorities don’t give a rip about anywhwere outside the big cities, except for how much they can tax them and tell the people out there how to live. It’s the US Federal government VS the States, within most of the States. The big cities grab most of the power and money, doling out a pittance back to those they took it from. Doesn’t matter if the official capitol city is a little town, the largest city in each State has become its de-facto seat of government power and control.

    1. Everybody can earn $500 Daily… Yes! you can earn more than you think by working online from home. I have been doing this job for like a ADt few weeks and my last week payment was exactly 2537 dollars…. Detail Of Work

    2. Do you want to earn cash online from your living room, easily work with a laptop for a few hours a day, earn 550-650 euros a day and get paid every week by deciding on your working hours? it is all true and completely changed my life. Then try this. Read More.

  47. “Americans have moved toward belief in the legitimacy of elections only if their side wins.”
    I guess the bipartisan changing of the rules on Libertarians after they met the last goal was my early realization that all our elections have been fixed to keep it a 2 party = 1 party system.

  48. I get paid over $190 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing, <(")

    HERE ➤➤ VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL.

  49. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, go to the residence tab of this web website online for additional diffused factors …Get data<3
    HERE VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL.

  50. Some interesting comments here, but I am surprised at how many of them seem heavily rooted in the idea that government is an absolute necessary evil. You either own yourself or you can believe in government authority…you can’t have both. One thing I like about the article is that it talks about creating systems based on the type of society you find most appealing. Do all of these systems have to be government based? I don’t know why people have such a hard time envisioning a world without violent and coercive governments. People are so inventive, but if they don’t allow themselves to even entertain this idea, innovative new ways to organize society will not be forth coming. Dare to dream. Dare to own yourself and imagine a world without VIOLENT/COERCIVE GOVERNMENT(S).

    1. It is always easy to imagine, but is the reality matching and even if so, how do people get to there from here?

    2. What came first, people or governments?

      Governments exist and were created out of necessity. They are needed to protect our god given rights. They need to be strong enough to protect our rights but restrained enough to prevent abuse. The balance will never be perfect but the striving for that perfect balance brings about a society that is far better than anarchy or totalitarianism.

      Envisioning a world where all men are angels might make for a pleasant dream, but it is not and never will be reality.

      I would be happy with a world where people learn from history and do not make the same mistakes over and over. But alas that is also a pipe dream.

  51. I’d love to see the brass tacks on what is being done at the federal level that Tuccille thinks should be handled at a more local level.

    Also, a similar list from a representative conservative American on the same topic.

    I suspect that the overlap between the two would be rather small.

  52. I make 85 dollar an hour posting to internet. Very easy job and anyone can do it. Everyone need money during this time of COVID crisis. For detail click on here….  Read More  

  53. Do you really think that the leftists in this country will allow the other side to enjoy their style of governance in peace and autonomy? If we had several different “government clubs”, some will inevitably fail. Then people will want to migrate to clubs that are working out. And then they’ll resist club mandates and try to implement their own rules. That describes America right now. We have all the immigrant, Mexico doesn’t.

    More importantly, it’s silly to think there’s a system of governance that does everything that I or my group of people want to. For that system to work the we need the ability to filter people out, and libertarians won’t agree to that.

  54. This kinda reminds me of how many commercial vehicles are registered in Oklahoma, or people get out of state carry permits from other states. Unfortunately, it also reminds me of how many anti-gun politicians want to get rid of “preemption” laws in their states so that cities can have their own, stricter gun control than the state has and people break the law just by driving across the state.
    In other areas, getting rid of government monopolies on services such as garbage service, cable tv service, etc, can also help, allowing more consumer choice than the local governments currently allow.

  55. Will Reason EVER try to get rid of all the spam comments and replies around here? Work from home my ass…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.