American voters (those who, in the electorate, actually vote) are split into two halves, each of which hates the other and wants to impose its preferences and values on others (assuming that each half is homogeneous). A Twitter follower of mine suggested that breaking up the country into smaller pieces may be a solution.
It would still not be possible to gerrymander the country into homogeneous parts except with a very large number of pieces. I replied (in not perfect English) with another solution:
The other solution is to shrink the federal government to the point where it doesn’t matter much who is elected–except that voters keep the option of kicking out any elected ruler who turns [out] to be a liar and fraudster (or a dangerous ignorant).
This is the (classical) liberal solution, which a three-century-old tradition has been after, from John Locke to Adam Smith, from David Hume to James Buchanan–not to forget Jean-Baptiste Say and many others. At the extreme margin of this tradition, we even find some anarchists–witness Anthony de Jasay’s “capitalist state” or Robert Nozick’s “minimal state.” In some sense, the liberal tradition would split America into 330,000,000 pieces each made of one free individual (including children, who are sovereign-to-be persons). Live and let live.
A solution somewhere on this liberal continuum is not easy to reach, as the past three centuries demonstrate. But the alternative equilibrium, tyranny, is not exactly endearing.
My Twitter correspondent seemed to agree. He finally tweeted:
We learn to leave each other alone.” <–sounds like a plan!
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Nov 6 2020 at 1:26pm
Amen.
Craig
Nov 6 2020 at 3:39pm
I did write this of course: We learn to leave each other alone.” <–sounds like a plan! I don’t suggest it has much chance of happening!
Indeed the end quotes suggest a front quote was missing. The context of this quote is that indeed, I would much prefer a ‘radical’ federalism to dissolution of the Union. The quote was from an article written by Ben Shapiro commenting on an article written by Hillary Clinton regarding how federalism could be the solution to a very divided country. For the life of me, I could not find that article and I had to resort to an indirect reference to it, I know she wrote it I believe after her loss to Trump in 2016. I could be mistaken, perhaps before? Link to Shapiro article: https://www.gazettextra.com/opinion/columns/shapiro-hillary-clinton-has-a-good-idea-federalism/article_f664a960-0180-5da4-8eab-24c15a211ef0.html
One note of course is that such a notion of federalism would itself be considered, at least generally, a conservative victory. People like HRC tend to take federalism seriously only when the Democrats do not hold the reins of power.
Now with respect to secession, the Professor comments the potential for infinite balkanization:
“It would still not be possible to gerrymander the country into homogeneous parts except with a very large number of pieces.”
Indeed, that does seem impractical to me and indeed there are blue areas of very red states and vice versa, right? For me I would suggest its really about states which is the unitary foundation of the republic. I mean even the historical Civil War secession sees mountainous areas with large pro-Union sentiment straight down the Appalachains, enough in WV to break away from the seceding VA but the same in NC, SC and most famously in East TN. At least it allows for secessio plebis where people can rent a U-Haul or vote with their feet. In a sense that is what I did, I moved 1200 miles to get away from the confiscatory taxation of Blue America. I harp on it quite a bit that taxation had gotten such that I would pay $.56 off each dollar earned in North Jersey for local, state (I would also have to file NY State) and federal taxation. A house double the size is being paid for ENTIRELY in South FL by the taxes I’m NOT paying to the People’s Republic of NJ.
“hates the other”
I don’t hate them, I fear them. Not only the confiscatory taxation, that’s one thing, but I fear straight up economic ostracization.
.
Craig
Nov 6 2020 at 3:44pm
I did not intend for this to be a reply of course, I guess I messed up and hit reply instead of leave a comment….
robc
Nov 6 2020 at 3:51pm
Independent city states could solve the problem without huge number of countries: Start with the largest and work down until a decent majority of people remaining say, “Yep, good enough.”
Start with NYC. Most of the rest of NY will be happy to be separated from them, and NYC could clearly support themselves (with free trade with the old USA) as an independent nation.
LA and CA separation may not work as well, but I think Chicago from Illinois would work as well as the NY one does.
Kevin
Nov 6 2020 at 2:29pm
I agree wholeheartedly, but subsidies, socialism, and the creep of totalitarianism probably aren’t going anywhere.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 7 2020 at 11:27am
@Kevin: I hope you’re right (if I understand you well), but there are many indications to the contrary–including https://www.wsj.com/articles/western-economies-embrace-state-intervention-emulating-asia-11604574001.
Andy Halloran
Nov 6 2020 at 7:27pm
The UNITED STATES of America started out with 13 pieces and has grown to 50 (not counting DC). But the intent, as set forth in the Constitution. was to greatly limit the power of the Federal government to only certain areas as set forth therein. This is made even more clear by the tenth amendment which, sadly, has been repudiated by the Supreme Court mis-using the commerce clause. See Wickard v Filburn! Our existing 50 pieces have been humbled and minimized by the exorbitant powers of the ferderal government. Better to simply go back to the original intent!
Thomas Hutcheson
Nov 6 2020 at 9:27pm
There are a few issues in which this could work like abortion, but immigration, trade, the social safety net, and climate change the issue transcend state boundaries. Would state level regulation of communications, air travel, food and drug safety result in less government?
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 8 2020 at 10:49pm
It depends on what size are the states. The smaller they are, the more competition, and the less regulation (assuming freedom of establishment). At the limit, with 300,000,000 “states” there is (arguably) no regulation but contractual. If one wants to make a public good argument, it has to be made very precisely and carefully.
nobody.really
Nov 7 2020 at 5:07am
One of the perpetual challenges of (classical) liberalism: It’s relationship to democracy. Because, time and again, people vote against it. Revealed preference strongly suggests that voters prefer bigger government. It seems ironic to say that liberalism is incompatible with democracy, but I haven’t been able to avoid the conclusion.
So to make classical liberalism work, we need powerful counter-majoritarian forces. The US has built some into its Bill of Rights. Could we design others?
Jon Murphy
Nov 7 2020 at 8:31am
True, but that problem isn’t unique to liberalism nor democracy. The big challenge to any political system is mission drift. For example, the Soviets experienced it (let’s not forget the coup against Gorbechev was by Soviet hardliners who thought he went soft). Indeed, this “mission drift” is one of the big issues discussed in political economy; has been for centuries.
I don’t think the question is so much “is liberalism incompatible with democracy,” but rather “is political theory incompatible with politics” 🙂
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 7 2020 at 11:02am
@nobody.really: Yours is a real question. It is the question liberals have been asking for three centuries. The jury is still out on whether there is a way to contain Leviathan, including “totalitarian democracy,” as Jouvenel called it. Anthony de Jasay is especially interesting, and troubling, in his negative answer.
Craig
Nov 8 2020 at 2:10pm
“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
― James Madison
I would suggest the jury isn’t out actually. The Constitution has a fatal flaw in it in that the federal government is the sole arbiter of the extent of its powers.
A government designed to be a ‘limited government of enumerated powers’ is now a government empowered to legislate for the ‘general welfare’ which is any given legislative topic. That was ‘settled by [judicial] decision’ back in the New Deal.
And just to make sure there aren’t any other roadblocks to their authority, they’re going to pack the court to make sure the court gives them whatever answer they want because ultimately why would any career politician ever be interested in ‘limited’ government?
robc
Nov 8 2020 at 5:46pm
Direct election of senators ended one of the major checks on the federal government.
Roger McKinney
Nov 9 2020 at 3:17pm
History shows us that if we restrict the rabble in any way, such as by Constitutional amendments, they will riot until they get their way.
Envy and the lust to dominate powers socialism. Helmut Schoeck’s book Envy:A Theory of Social Behavior shows that only Christianity has managed to tame either. Freedom and capitalism were flashes in the pan of history when Christians and non-Christians held similar values. As Christianity has receded, so has the opportunity for freedom.
Student of Liberty
Nov 10 2020 at 4:10am
I do not think that voting counts as or is what is commonly understood under “revealed preference”.
Replacing coercive tax payments by voluntary contributions would reveal people’s preference towards bigger government.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 17 2020 at 10:32am
You are right. A vote is not revealed preferences; it’s just an expression, it’s just talk. The proof is that the voter would have “purchased” the same thing even if he had voted for another candidate or not voted at all.
Matthias
Nov 8 2020 at 9:46pm
You can also appeal to good olr
Matthias
Nov 8 2020 at 9:47pm
You can also appeal to good old subsidiarity. Even the EU pays lip service to that principle.
Roger McKinney
Nov 9 2020 at 3:06pm
Thats a reasonable solution but socialists are irrational. They’re consumed by envy and what Augustine called the lust to dominate.
Henry
Nov 10 2020 at 10:04am
Just want to say that I vote and don’t hate anyone.
Mark Bahner
Nov 10 2020 at 11:02am
Yes, basically every city in the U.S. with 100,000+ population is Democratic, where counties just 50+ miles outside the city limits are often Republican.
David S
Nov 11 2020 at 3:33pm
Keep in mind that even the cities are actually 30-40% Republican. You really can’t separate R vs D – though I think that rural/city needs are different enough that governance should be separate.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 11 2020 at 8:52pm
@Mark Bahner: Homogeneous means homogeneous. And under a government that can meddle into nearly everything, it means 100% homogeneous–that is, the same utility functions.
Comments are closed.