The L Word, libertarian

 When the cat’s away, the mouse will play.

Madam toastmaster, fellow toastmasters, honored guests.

Many of you know that my wife Libby is away up in Vermont.  I’m going to take advantage of that to speak about my personal politics.  Libby normally forbids me from talking about religion or politics in public, but while the cat’s away, the mouse will play.

PAUSE

I believe in minimum government.  You can call me libertarian.

PAUSE

Because that word libertarian is widely misunderstood, I first need to spend some time explaining what I am not. I am not, repeat not, one of those libertarian militia crackpots.  Nor am I a member of the Libertarian party with a capital L, I’m libertarian with a small l.    Nor am I an anarchist.  Anarchy means zero government, not minimal government.

PAUSE

So how much government is minimal?  Theorists dating back to the founding of our country say that the minimum is security, both foreign and domestic.  Foreign security means defending ourselves against foreign aggression.  Domestic security means criminal laws, and a justice system.  A free society can not be free if our property is stolen or our lives threatened.    

Personally, I have little interest in theories.  I just want government to be a lot smaller than it is today.  A whole lot smaller.    And since I am not likely to see any movement in that direction in my lifetime, I will never need to address the question exactly how small is small enough?  But here’s a hint. I think the year 1901 was the sweet spot when government was as big as it should ever be.

My reasons are both moral and practical.   I expect that my moral objection may surprise you --- nonviolence.    Governments make laws.   If you don’t obey the laws they will send men to arrest you.  If you resist them, they will kill you.   That’s extreme.  About as extreme as you can get.  In my opinion, such extreme measures should be used as little as possible.  That equates to minimal government.

Let me illustrate my point with a single, simple example.  A city park.

PAUSE

Parks are nice.   It is nice to provide a park for all citizens, even if not every citizen goes there.   I would be glad to donate to a park, and I think most of us would.  But taking a collecting for a park at gunpoint is too extreme.  I believe that using the power of government for purposes such as a park is immoral.  As much as I love parks, if my only choices are the threat of violence  or no park, I choose no  park.

You might protest, “But I pay my taxes willingly.  So do all my friends.  No violence is necessary.”   Sorry, I reject that argument.  I watched the films of Holocaust victims walking calmly into the gas chambers at Auchwitz. The were not being beaten or shoved by the guards.  Does that make the Nazis nonviolent?  Of course not.  IMO there is no moral difference between the use of violence, or the overt threat of violence, or the implied threat of violence.

My practical objections to government focus on dysfunction.  I had the privilege of living 10 years in Sweden.  Sweden used to have the most successful socialist government in history.  I learned their secret.  Swedish society was a monoculture, and their government employed the best and brightest people.  Because of that, Swedes were comfortable allowing those government employees very wide discretion doing their jobs.  Fewer rules, more trust.   

In America, we hate the ruling class, and we certainly don’t trust them. I don’t trust Trump or Pelosi.  Instead of trust, we limit their discretion via countless written rules and regulations.  The Federal Register is the record of new or changed rules and regulations.   In my lifetime, the Federal Register page count grew by a factor of 25:1. That is one of many clues I look at to conclude that the size and intrusiveness of  our government is out of control, and that it will bring us to our knees eventually.

The founding fathers worried about this.  They called it the tyranny of the majority.  Alas, very few people beside me appear concerned.  However, since the election of 2016, people have been reconsidering how much power government should have.

PAUSE

Now, can I trust you all to not tell Libby what I said?