Is small government really better than big government when you have a pluralistic country consisting of different ethnic group, different genders, different religions and different political ideologies? Don’t we need a master juggler to balance these manifold interests? Are we really doing people a favor if we do away with food stamps and force them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? In 1929 the wealthy found themselves with no money, at least not enough to cover the margins they owed on stocks. Many took the easy way out and jumped out the window. Big mouths who rant about Ayn Rand really ought to take that into consideration; the worm could turn in a hurry.

I might be being a little simplistic here, but I like to think of the libertarian philosophy as a later version of The Articles of Confederation. Libertarians would do away with the Federal Reserve and return us to the gold standard. Alexander Hamilton established the national bank as a way to deal with the massive debt states endured after the Revolution. Some states objected, but they’d already paid theirs. If we didn’t help the poor states out, there would be no United States. Besides, the colonies were a bunch of bickering little “countries” charging each other tariffs to carry on trade with each other. The only executive the country had was the president of the Continental Congress, and he had no real power. The revolutionary army almost lost the war because the states wouldn’t contribute money or troops to Washington’s army. I don’t think it’s too much of a reach to say that those who sided with the British (and there were many) were the conservatives of their day.

Libertarians also like to talk about the Constitution like they wrote it, and they’re the only guardians of freedom. Without the federalists (those who believed in a strong federal government) there would have been no Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, and he wrote most of the Federalist Papers, which persuaded at least nine states to vote for it. George Washington was a Federalist, and without him we would’ve lost the war.

Then there’s the matter of state's rights. Libertarians like to talk about that quite a bit, too. One state tried to nullify federal gun laws. The Texas governor talked about secession if The Affordable Health Care law was passed, as did several others. This is irresponsible. We fought the bloodiest war in American history over nullification and secession. The Constitution is pretty clear about federal law holding precedence over state law. Even Thomas Jefferson, when he was an old man and had been president for eight years, felt differently about some of the things he said as a young man(See Thomas Meacham's biography). He was one of the first to talk about nullification and state rights. Jefferson wasn’t afraid to ignore the Constitution. When he agreed to the Louisiana Purchase, he didn’t consult the Constitution.

Deregulation is another Libertarian fancy. Wall Street has tried (unintentionally but carelessly) to blow up our country, twice. Yet Libertarians trust them to provide jobs and to play fair. Let me tell you about the Commodore. That’s Commodore Vanderbilt who played fast and furious on the stock market with the benefit of a lot of insider trading. It was legal in those days. How do you trust a place where Bernie Madoff did what he did? And furthermore, corporations could care less if you have a job or not. Their job is to make a profit, and if that means laying off half their workers, they’ll do it. Actually they’d prefer robots, if they could get away with it.

If you thought the Russian Revolution was a mess, watch what happens if corporate America continues on its present course. Tea Party congressmen have done everything in their power to fight the Dodd-Frank act. What is their alternative, business as usual?

Libertarians like to say that Americans should able to do whatever they please as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. What a load of crap. 30,000 or more Americans die every year because the conservative/libertarian/Tea Party, NRA junta refuses to give an inch on gun regulation, arguing that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a gun. What about the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment? Most American gun owners don’t belong to a militia. Besides, our forefathers were concerned with the British invading American homes and taking away the guns they were using to defend themselves. We were a young democracy, and there was every chance a dictator would hijack the Revolution. It happened in France; it also happened in Russia and China. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with the right to own an assault rifle or sell one to a straw man buying one for the Mexican cartel.

A small government, or no government as Grover Norquist would get us if he drowned it in a bathtub, would be a bigger mess than The Articles of Confederation, verging on anarchy.  

Dave Schwinghammer's unconventional mystery, SOLDIER'S GAP, is available on authorsden and at Amazon.com, new and used.