Luke Tatum

If you think the federal government is superior to the states, let’s do a thought experiment!

You use your resources to have a new house built.
You wait patiently.
Your brand new house is ready!
You order a security system and have professionals install it.

But then, you make it very clear to the installers: You want them to make up the codes to get past the security system, and to not give them to you. After all, they worked hard setting up the alarms and cameras.

The house and its contents now effectively belong to the security company.

See the problem?

I consider myself a trusting person.

However, with time and experience, I have learned to always be extremely suspicious of those claiming to have an easy, one-size-fits-all solution to a problem plaguing humanity. Let’s walk through an example.

“All of the nutrition needed by humans can easily be made into a powder. It’s cheap to produce. We could end world hunger!”

This is the cry of the technocrat. “Submit yourself to reason,” he commands from his ivory tower, wielding his elite tower guards. “It is for your own good.”

There are a number of problems with “solving” world hunger in this fashion.

How does this nutritive powder taste? If it is unpalatable, who will voluntarily pay for it? If no one will pay for it, how will this solution be funded? If by taxation, is this not a sick irony–paying for something undesirable by stealing money and redistributing it to a company that cannot make a profit on its own merits?

How will it be distributed? For this approach to solve hunger globally, it must be applied globally. This means the heavy hand of the state is involved. How many factories should be constructed, and of what sizes? What locations should they occupy? Governments fail spectacularly at answering these types of questions. Soviet breadlines, anyone?

How will it be produced? This is follows from the previous question. Depending on the raw materials needed, how do we ensure a consistent supply of these inputs? Does the sudden shortage of one factor of production mean that humanity as a whole is suddenly cast into the merciless void of starvation?

The list could continue on like this for a long time indeed. The technocrat will no doubt have very scientific explanations for how to solve each of these in turn. This leads us to the most fundamental flaw with the entire approach: humans are not homogeneous. You and I are not factors in an equation, equally serviceable in the machinations of grand and terrible governmental enterprises. We are men and women with widely varying tastes, cultures, and ideas.

Money is the great unifying force by which these many preferences can co-exist. A one-size-fits-all solution is not needed. We may all specialize in what we are good at, and receive money in return. Money can be traded for that which we desire. In this example, it allows us to shop for calamari, bean sprouts, canned cranberry sauce, potatoes, ice cream, and and endless list of other things. We buy only what we desire to buy.

Viewed in this light, grocery stores are the unappreciated miracle in every city. The preferences of millions are satisfied, and all that the market asks is that you do something to help your fellow humans in return. Earn money–both you and your employer are better off for the trade. Spend money–both you and the store are better off for the trade.

This post is adapted from an excellent conversation with a dear friend, via Facebook. He originally asked about term limits, which are extremely low on my list of priorities. In response, he asked for my top four.

#1 is self-improvement.

Learn, learn, learn, learn, learn. Then, learn some more. The curricula taught in schools, both public and private, is practically worthless. It’s worse than knowing nothing about history–it’s wrong history. Worse than no economics–it’s wrong economics. Without going into much detail on these particulars, let me just say that a person who spends 10 minutes a day studying a the works of a figure like Murray Rothbard can run intellectual laps around a clown with a PhD in economics like Paul Krugman. You can and will become a force to be reckoned with and respected, simply by making the decision to invest your time in self-study of these topics.

To quote the great H.L. Mencken: “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”

#2 is State nullification of federal laws.

There is an extremely strong historical, logical, moral, and even constitutional case to be made for this approach. I can give you a broad overview if it interests you, but the best reference on the subject is Tom Woods’ book, simply titled “Nullification.” This is notably different from the other three items on the list, in that it requires large-scale organization to make it happen. However, I think the evidence is clear that begging politicians to “repeal Obamacare” or “streamline the tax code” never manifest themselves in ways that are beneficial from the perspective of States’ rights. Working at the State level requires far less manpower and money than trying to influence things like the presidential election, and yet people always seem to shoot for the least attainable goals. This is my answer to that.

#3 is to ridicule and ignore the ruling elite.

It’s a great thing to be critical, but even better is to make a laughing stock out of them. Make the political class the butt end of every joke. Craft and share hilarious tales of government ineptitude. Then, when they demand your respect, ignore them. Sit down during the pledge of allegiance. Stay home on election day. Gather up all of the pomp and the circumstance and kick it back in their faces. Consent is the one thing that keeps them in power. For great reading on this, try “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude,” written in 1553 by Etienne de la Boétie. It’s free on mises.org.

#4 is to share your intellectual journey with others.

Make videos, start a website, write articles, speak at small events. Push yourself out of your comfort zone. Force yourself to go toe-to-toe with their ridiculous arguments. It will strengthen you to press onward. This step also has the great benefit of building your social circles. I can’t even begin to tell you how many friend requests I’ve gotten just from taking these things head-on.

So, there’s a top 4. The list somewhat presumes that you are a radical, but take it for what it’s worth. If you are curious as to why this list is not more like a set of policy prescriptions, my answer is simple. There is an endless sea of well-researched papers published by massive think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. Does anyone care? No. I’m not an extensively credentialed D.C. satellite group like that, so my opinion is correspondingly even less appreciated by those who write legislation. Besides, my entire position is that no one should be writing legislation at all. This all goes back to point #3 on the list. Rulers can only rule with consent. If you withdraw your consent, you’ve already done more than the vast majority of people who devote their lives to politics.

One more quote: “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frédéric Bastiat

When we realize how genuinely insane that prospect is, we start to see the state for what it is: organized crime.