The Libertarian Conflict

Lew Rockwell presents it well here. This is an important question that has tied me in knots for a while - and regardless of how much I think about it, I cannot find a satisfactory answer. It is so important because it is so fundamental to all else. With the exception of the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian movement, most liberty-minded people, from Nock'ian minarchists to the more centralized-Spooner'ites, acknowledge that formal law and government institutions to enforce those laws are required, at some level, to protect fundamental (natural) rights. Indeed, the structural design of the government and the powers granted to it, as the Founding Fathers recognized, are ultimately more important than any abstract conception of rights because without the proper structure, no rights are secure.

To summarize this question in a single sentence - how much power (jurisdictional) do we delegate to the state? Arguably, the Founders believed that most power should be left to the individual State governments where the citizens can restrain (in theory) the government from violating their liberties. Obviously, it is much easier to assert your influence over local governing bodies and if your particular state repeatedly fails to address your grievances, you can pull up stakes and blow the joint (this threat of citizen-flight exerts control over the state as well). Pursuant to this view, the Founders crafted a Federal Constitution with very few and specifically defined powers. Accordingly, the federal system, in the Framers' view, would not be a threat to liberty because (1) the Constitution's structural restraints (the enumerated powers) limited the reach of the Federal government and (2) the people would place direct (democratic and economic) restraints on the exercise of State power. Ah..., the genius.

However, the scourge of slavery poisoned this view for 19th century libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner, who viewed the southern state governments as tyrannical threats to liberty and forced them to look to the central government to universally protect individual liberty. Unfortunately, this was necessary at the time. But, in the long run, it provided pretext for the centralizers to consolidate power and expand the reach of the federal government (as many libertarians cheered on); thereby placing the reins of government beyond the control of the people. So, herein lies the dilemma.

What is one to do? The likelihood of stripping federal power in favor of autonomous state and local control to the original 18th century design is about as likely as Raphael Palmeiro's claim that he does not know how the roids got into his bloodstream. Good one, Raphy. Nothing short of revolution will deliver us back to the promise land. So, the catch-22 is this: we demand that Washington recognize and protect our liberties because that is where we have to go - but with every such petition we implicitly acknowledge that the Feds have this power to begin with and simultaneously fatten the federal beast which grows more and more unaccountable to the people by the day. Booyacatcha.