The Next President Should Abolish Everything
In the Abolish Everything issue, Reason writers make the case for ending the Fed, the Army, Social Security, and everything else.

"Pick at random any three letters from the alphabet, put them in any order, and you will have an acronym designating a federal agency we can do without." This quip was true when Milton Friedman said it many decades ago, and it's gotten only more true over the many years that George Will has been quoting it in his columns and speeches.
The Constitution laid out a clear vision for the role of the federal government, one limited in both scope and power. Yet the government has drifted far from this blueprint. Departments and agencies now exist that would be unrecognizable to the Founders. Despite trillions in taxpayer dollars and decades—or even centuries—of meddling, these agencies have hampered economic growth, violated human rights, and eroded civil liberties. They have somehow managed to make air travel more frustrating, education more expensive, and drug enforcement more violent.
What follows is an idiosyncratic and nonexhaustive list of parts of the government that we could surely do without. We've left untouched some functions specifically mentioned in the Constitution (hello, United States Postal Service!) and confined our ire to the federal level. We also had to limit ourselves based on the amount of room in the magazine (there's no love lost for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but we ran out of pages!), and we tried not to repeat arguments for abolition that we've made in the very recent past (we'd love to abolish NASA again, but we've made that case before). We aren't making the case for anarchism (at least at the moment), merely hoping to highlight that the federal government was never supposed to be all things to all people. It's time to take a hard look at which agencies have earned their place and which are long past their expiration date.
Sometimes reform is the answer. Victories for liberty can be and are achieved through gradual change. But sometimes, especially when it comes to bloated bureaucracies of dubious constitutionality, it's better to simply abolish everything.
Read Reason's Abolish Everything issue:
- Abolish Amtrak
- Abolish Antitrust
- Abolish the Army
- Abolish Borders
- Abolish the DEA
- Abolish the Department of Education
- Abolish the Department of Transportation
- Abolish the EPA
- Abolish the FCC
- Abolish the FDA
- Abolish the Fed
- Abolish the Federal Minimum Wage
- Abolish Federal Student Loans
- Abolish FEMA
- Abolish FOIA
- Abolish ICE
- Abolish the IRS—and the Income Tax Too
- Abolish the National Park Service
- Abolish the NSA and CIA
- Abolish Obamacare
- Abolish the Small Business Administration
- Abolish Social Security
- Abolish the TSA
- Abolish the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Abolish Everything."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don’t believe that a Kamala supporter wants this.
You had your candidate, libertarian platform and all.
How did that work out?
Why should a president do what nobody voted for?
Why aren’t you put on the front lines in Iran?
Why aren’t you able to refute anything I’ve said?
A. It’s not only because you’re stupid. The truth can’t be refuted.
Libertarian - everyone is a Boss and there are no workers
Slaves and slavers.
In a completely free market, where everything is abolished, only might makes right.
Government is the embodiment of might.
Capitalism is the embodiment of voluntary exchange.
People could buy protection services against looters, instead of putting the looters in charge.
Government is the embodiment of coordinated management of complex social infrastructure for the people.
Trading a public dictator for a private one isn’t an improvement
Ever played someone in chess and they notice they are losing and throw all the pieces off? Wait. This is KMW. Change chess to checkers.
Candy land is her mental capacity
Expect a deluge of conveniently libertarian takes the next four years penned by CUCLLs.
Did you coin that?
Man. Mike outing himself the same way he outted his white knight sock yesterdat was hilarious.
The lefties here are losing it. Jeffy is obviously furious right now too. So much fun to be had.
I'm too busy and lazy to find it but, as a young Yalie, KM-W wrote a nice essay on anarchy that ran in one of that Ivy's undergraduate publications.
What’s funny is… there is literally no condition in which a Harris (or Biden) candidate or supporter– even a reluctant and strategic one, would ever want to see this happen. There IS a condition in which a Trump or a Trump supporter would want to see this happen– even if admittedly not for “libertarian” reasons.
“MAGA World” doesn’t have a whole lot of love for the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, the FDA or the EPA or the NEA or the ATF.
Oh you mean like a guy who spent the first go around eliminating regulations?
Do you have any sence of shame?
But he wasn't perfect! And he refused to be an authoritarian and force Congress to get in line despite him being an authoritarian!
Also, he had opinions that were ever so-slightly statist, like keeping people from the country of a novel virus' origin out of the country. But his opinions weren't as well-informed and clearly-'libertarian' as the people who wanted to lock everyone in their homes, vaccinate, and test everyone incessantly before allowing them to wear masks while eating or attending, in limited numbers, restaurants and churches.
Why the fuck didn't you publish this during the nomination for the LP?
The timing of this is proof that neither Reason nor it's owners actually care about success, only virtue signaling.
Virtue? Hahaha
When your platform can’t withstand scrutiny you don’t debate.
You only have sour grapes when you lose.
Yes, your Islamist brand of nazism certainly fits that description.
Or, for all their pillorying of the Republicans and Trump, they realize that putting out libertarian ideas now has a much better chance of gaining even a little traction with the communists out of the way.
Abolish web magazines?
This seems like a long list of unserious propositions.
Do you want more Chase Oliver/Don't say gay/pro-child-transition think pieces? Because this is how you get more Chase Oliver/Don't say gay/pro-child-transition think pieces!
What I find funny is, given Reason's track record, if he started doing exactly this the writers here would whine incessantly about the damage to "our society" of abolishing these departments without a replacement plan.
I don't know. With the deference here to China and never holding them accountable... the no army thing would definitely benefit China. So pretty consistent.
Well if any of this gets done it will be thanks to Orangeman. Musk, Ron Paul, Rfk Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek all on the incoming team. And meanwhile Mike Johnson is working on moving DC agency offices to flyover country. We shall see but we're in much better shape now than we were under the Biden/Harris regime.
None of it will get done, but one can dream.
Let's get serious and winnow the list down a bit, in order of dissolution:
1. Department of Education
2. ATF
3. Obamacare [because it has done more harm than good]
The Department of Redundancy Department will need to double their efforts.
Redouble!!!
The department of Transportation is so needed that the Mayor Pete could take 6 months off with no problems. Add it to the list.
Lmao. This place and The Bee are my go to sites for political laughs.
And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people decided to elect Adolph Hitler to a second, non-consecutive term.
In Kamala Harris' America the garbage takes you out!
That’s like an old Yakov Smirnoff joke.
RFK Jr tells MSNBC that he intends to clear out entire departments of the FDA
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1854203534394146910
https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMzNqNnJ6MzVmM3RzcDdzMm9od3IweGswanI4cnd1NDYzMmNyczk0YiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/BYhoMtJMQsYVy/giphy.gif
But... how will our experimental drugs be approved more quickly?!!
RE: Of all the things on your abolish list, the Army is one that's explicitly authorized by the constitution, and not just by amendment, by the original unamended constitution.
What is specifically authorized by the Constitution is the militia - not the Army. 'Raising armies' is a role for Congress - and is connected with both militia and declaration of war. It is no accident that when the Constitution was ratified the Congress limited the size/location of the army (then called Legion of the United States) to federal territories and an artillery battery at the West Point Arsenal. Otherwise - it was state militias - who are explicitly (by the constitution) called into federal service - with Prez as CinC - to deal with invasions, insurrections, etc.
An article that describes what constitutionally 'should be' absolutely should include the notion of an 'army'.
But right by it is abolish the border so the US ceases to exist in any meaningful way. Pood, problem solved.
Expenditures to fund an army are limited to 2 years. The Constitution didn't envision a standing army, just a temporary one if war was imminent.
Iconoclastic as it is, this is one of the most Libertarian opinions Reason has run in a long time. There has been a lot of faux-Libertarian populist drivel on this site of late, which has made me wonder if the writers really understand Libertarianism, be it right or left-centered, but, dammit, Katherine, preach it from the rafters. I might disagree on the post office, military, and a few other constitutionally mandated institutes, but that is some sexy-ass speechifying. You go, girl. Word.
In the Abolish Everything issue, Reason writers make the case for ending the Fed, the Army, Social Security, and everything else.
Once again, beltway glibertarians, does that mean eliminate all those agencies that would be responsible for telling us what's inside all of our legalized/decriminalized stuff? Or do we... Noam Chomsky-like, hang on to those few institutions that actually provide some protections to people for safety and civil rights?
If your not a good manager, then yes, abolishing everything and starting from scratch might make sense to you.
A real leader would understand that transitions are important and would be much more judicious.
Or, you can propose a wacky/stupid plan, have everyone note how wacky/stupid it/you are and you get ignored.
Lets take Amtrak. Is there a case to be made for rail service? Often (always?) it is cheaper to fly. Is there a legitimate reason to have passenger rail service here in USA?
If it was a 200mph inter city passanger rail - does that change the equation. What will it take to build, maintainer and SECURE such a system? With airplanes I just have to secure two air ports... at least for now...
DEA? Yeah, ditch ANY specialized police force. "We need to enforce xxx law!" "Why?" "Because that is all we do!"
> Lets take Amtrak. Is there a case to be made for rail service?
Since the topic is dismantling Federal agencies, the answer is an emphatic no. There is no constitutional case to be made for Federally mandated or funded rail service. Deregulate that shit and the let the private sector and the market figure it out.
Don't get rid of passenger rail, just privatize it. What have you got against trains? They are a hell of a lot more comfortable than airplane sardine cans and you can do work on them rather than drive. If you book far enough in advance they aren't even that expensive. It depends where you are going.
Sell the trains and the rails to the highest bidder. The trains don’t go away just because the federal funding ends abruptly.
If no one can figure out how to turn a profit on some routes, they will sell the rails for scrap.
Abolish the Army
Abolish Borders
Look, I get that you feel like you have to include these to remain consistent in your "abolish everything" stance - and while everything else on that list may be entirely up for grabs - these two are 100% necessary for any nation to function. And the two combined, in this case, sounds as if it's straight out of a Great Replacement Theory textbook.
So, look, Libertarians have this weird blind spot when it comes to stuff like this. Like they never evolved out of a mindset of agrarian societies, and think that such a mentality could apply to a nation state of 350M people (plus all the border jumping criminals they want imported) that is diverse in its makeup of urban, suburban, and rural communities. Like they kind of secretly loathe this "United States" idea and think we should just be a bunch of self-sustaining tribes that only ever trade peacefully and definitely won't ever go to war with each other (even though tribal societies, all throughout history, have proven that they're the most bloodthirsty, greedy, and destructive societies that have ever existed).
A first world nation needs an army, and it needs clearly defined borders. Period. Doesn't work without them, and I defy anyone to provide one single historical shred of evidence to the contrary.
The problem with abolishing the Army and abolishing borders, is that the time it will take for someone else to come and re-institute everything you just abolished (and then some) will be very short.
Yup.
Mogadishu on line one lol ...
Just wondering if the instantaneous creation of the borders for the Republic of Texas will be respected the way the (one sided) border with Mexico will be recognized on their side?
Right…. as if Americans don’t have 100 million guns.
"A rifle behind every blade of grass" as the Japanese general noted.
What do we do if they invade with a 200 million man army?
Shoot twice.
We actually tried the abolish the Army/Navy thing after the Revolution. The abolish the Army thing didn't survive Washington's first term, because it was completely unworkable (and contrary to pop history, the militia pretty much failed in every battle they participated in during the Revolution, for the most part, it was the regulars who did most of the fighting and were responsible for the few big victories in the war). The Navy was re-established under Adams (and Hamilton, who they quote as supporting to abolish the Army). Why did Hamilton change his mind? Why did Washington change his mind? Because they both realized how, unless you're a small, landlocked country, surrounded by the Alps, who does business willingly with both sides, and have few natural resources, depending on a militia only for your defense is just asking for someone to come along and take advantage of you. Even Jefferson, who ran partially on his opposition to Adams's naval spending, figured this out when he had to deal with the Barbary Coast pirate states. The citizen soldier myth is just that a myth. Militia is descent on the defense, especially if behind fortifications or field works, but horrible on the offensive, and even during the Civil War, where only one in ten Union soldiers were regular Army, it took months, often years to turn the state raised units accepted into federal service (different from the standard definition of militia). Until WW2, basic training and AIT weren't standard (yes they did enact basic in WW1 but ended it after the war). Why did they introduce basic and AIT? Because they expanded the military exponentially in both World Wars, and it takes a long time to turn a civilian into a soldier (three to four months, minimum and even then, you have a lot to learn once you join your unit). This is just a non-serious take I would expect from a freshman college student.
Why did the F.F. advocate no military? They were history scholars who relied on the record of ALL empires to support their position. The military was always used by the rulers against the populace that made it possible. The military doesn't create wealth, nor does it protect those who do. It protects and expands the authoritarian politicians.
The only effective defense is civilians, e.g., a militia. It worked in 'Nam, Afghanistan against extremely superior empires. I has been a deterrent for the Swiss that cost nothing compared to the empires.
Without armed Christian/Mohammedan National/International Socialists outside the border, there will be small justification for an army, the Federal Reserve System or even inspection at national borders. Seven centuries from now their abolition might not sound idiotic. But after Bert Hoover, Wesley Jones, Harry Anslinger and Hamilton Fish completely wrecked the US economy with Suprema Corte help, there inspectors popped up at the California border to turn back ignorant Okie rednecks, and Christian National Socialism promptly aggressed across borders. Arnychy, communism in a mask, fools weak eyes and minds alike.
But that would take a dictator!
Afuera!
Excellent article.
But do tell; how does National Borders, Border control (ICE) and a Defense Department (Army) NOT fit into the enumerated powers of the Union of States Government? Good grief; The very preamble mentions the “common defense” right off the bat. Followed by the taxation power. Why some might think it was the VERY REASON the Union of States was ever created in the first place instead of just having a USPS.
And you have to wonder why you get so much static in the comments section about Free-Range invaders (illegal immigrants). Maybe answer the question what you think is the main purpose for creating a Union of States was?
>>Maybe answer the question what you think ...
better essay
say one word about the Ministry of Silly Walks and I start lighting things on fire.
Lubbertarians hiding behind the Constitution!? What would Howard Roark or John Galt say? But I guess Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is a little inconvenient for you.
It's not hiding so much, as holding politicians to the standard they are legally required to follow anyway, and realizing that a Constitutionally limited government would be about 95% smaller than what we have now, a major victory for libertarians, if not a complete one.
What is missing from this is Interstate Compacts. I understand libertarians don't like that clause - but it exists and, in fact, is the reason why most federal stuff ends up being done federally. It is also the way much of the federal govt (executive branch) could be reverted to being managed by the states - without the unserious horseshit of arguing for either anarchism OR a specific policy of libertarians.
States want to make agreements for how to deal with various things. eg they want to know where other states are in educating students so they can place students in a grade when moving there. Or states may want to provide some welfare for disabled/senior residents without creating distortions for residents of other states who also happen to be US citizens. Or a virtually unlimited slate of specifics.
Libertarians don't want states to do ANY of that stuff. Indeed, they mostly want to FORCE states not to do any of that. But the Constitution and a federal system require that states be allowed to experiment and solve problems as they see fit. And figuring out how states can cooperate if need be is precisely the point of the interstate compact clause.
Failure to understand how something can be done via the interstate compact clause is precisely why Congress/states instead move for it to be done via the federal government via the executive branch.
>>Libertarians ... mostly want to FORCE
Also defund and disband the department of commerce, rural electrification and the FBI.
Then end all grants, foreign aid, subsidies and pull out of the UN and NATO.
Commerce in the US can take care of itself, thank you very much especially when there is little or no government intrusion.
The rural electrification department never should've been started, and the FBI has proven time again not only lawyers make lousy cops but have been a tool for those in power.
Eliminate what Reason has recommended along with the ones I recommend, and the taxpayers will have saved billions if not trillions of dollars.
> Abolish everything!
I can hear it now: “That’s not real libertarianism! Real libertarians wouldn’t abolish all those those, only those few things I want them to abolish. Like ATF and progressive public school administrators. Only a progtarian would want to abolish the FCC and mosquito abatement boards…"
Yes, all that is tyrannical. Also, it is NOT the root cause of the evil.
STRIKE AT THE ROOT!
At 82 I am convinced we won't as great as we were in 1781, when Americans left the British Empire, servants no more, instead, "sovereign citizens", i.e., "...equal (politically)..." to each other, IF we keep voting to be ruled by force, by deadly threat, fraud, propaganda. After 234 years of servitude, the constitutional republic experiment has failed over and over. It has denied us political equality, individual sovereignty. It has been tyrannical and growing more so every decade. We the People are seeing the end of our society, economically, and blaming capitalism instead of socialism. Most can't even define capitalism, the free market. How can they value or achieve it?
This lunacy is so simplistic that I should have my head examined for reading and then writing a comment
Notably absent from the list is the Department of Energy, which should be a prime target for elimination.
Ackshully, energy is a weapon worth the mass of an army times c²--which is why brainwashed commie Dems want it banned outside of China, Cuba, Korea and Pootiland. Brainwashed nazi republicans correctly grasp the general thrust of this fact and sense that energy can make fiery their Sword of Jesus at Armageddon. But for energy to enjoy 2A protection, the DOE is gonna haveta go. It blocks access to energy the way the FDA blocks access to food, drugs, working banks, stock markets, trade, production and peace. Ask the Hague (WW1) and League of Nations (WW2).
Don't forget to defund the NGOs.
Boy, I would be happy if the government ever eliminated a single agency instead of adding them.
Some pretty stupid stuff there. Abolishing the Fed would crash the dollar and in the long run lead to massive bank failures - which leads to economic disaster as well.
Abolishing the FDA would mean that individual states would either regulate drugs themselves or not do so at all., leading to both inefficiencies - duplication of efforts - or deaths in states that don't have their own regulatory bodies. The history of drugs does not give one confidence in a largely unregulated regime. Reduce the FDA's regulatory authority is a separate matter.
So instead of market-based bank failures, we have Fed induced bank failures, and taxpayer funded bailouts to save them.
The Fed was created with a promise to tame the "business cycle," putting an end to panics, recessions, and depressions. Not even 20 years later, the greatest financial depression in human history occurred. Coincidence?
Dumb predictions. The Fed was created to bolster the economy so as to survive prohibition--the cause of Opium Wars, the Panic of 1837, the Silent Panic of 1903, the boycott and recession of 1905, the Stock Panic, Banking Panic, liquidity Crunch and Great Recession of 1907-1912. Without the Fed replacing Clearing House Gentlemen's Agreements, the economy could hardly have survived the Hague-Harrison-Act-Income-Tax-caused Market shutdown and WW1. With the Fed, the US loaned Euromonarchies enough warbucks to ruin itself into being replaced by these plutocratic States, the new financial center.
Abolish the Army? No wonder no one takes you Libertarian dipshits seriously.
Well, originalists would think that there shouldn't be a long-term standing army, and they're mostly conservative.
Per the Constitution, the Army abolishes itself every 2 years. The Navy continues to defend the coasts, and the state militias deter Canada or Mexico from making a major mistake by trying to invade.
I'd keep the Air Force and Navy until the last mystical/looter satrapy is history. The cavalry could be profitably replaced by Civil Defense. Physicians in communist countries are well-trained in nuclear and CBW. In the USA, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness was attacked and smeared by the looter networks. Even heavy crates of Nuclear War Survival Skills we mailed from The Golem Press had to be insured, for the postal monopoly managed to somehow "lose" a surprising fraction of them while the USSR was still a thing.
That list looks like a good start.
Lenin in 1905 understood arnychism as moronic, parasitical and counterproductive. Only Murry Rottbutt failed to grasp that, yet managed to infect the nascent LP with that mental illness. Jerome Tuccille wrote a good history of the disaster you can read on Kindle. To this day, looters struggle to depict the LP as bomb-throwing commie arnychists or masked KKKhristian night-riders. The LNC has in recent years been their staunchest ally on both those fronts.
You can pick off all your enemies from the crennalated fort heights but even after they all lie dead, you have established nothing,
The Bible says this repeatedly:TO not be a bad person does not make you a good person.
Many of this things weren't around at Our Founding but everybody from Reason to Deneen has nothing but bad things to say about what they are supposedly defending.
"After you've killed every enemy of the good and the moral you might be left with the totally indifferent !!"
What does REASON actually stand for??? You snipe and kill from the heights of your fortress and think that must establish something positive in the end. It does absolutely nothing of the sort.