Libertarians are notoriously bad at figuring out how to move from point A to point B, let alone to point Z. They are very good at pointing out utopian ideals but not very good at shifting things in the right direction.

The typical libertarian is a utopian at heart — able to weave complex theories of what a perfect world would look like. Yet typically they are unable to offer second-best alternatives. If they can’t have the “perfect” solution, then no solution, no matter how good, is acceptable.

Consider the plight of the unemployed and poor in this country. What do libertarians have to offer them? The typical utopian would make claims that may be broadly true but not as true as they think. For instance, I’ve heard claims that “private charity” would be able to replace assistance via government. Yes, charity can fund lots of things but there is no actual evidence it can fund all the assistance that is needed.

Assume the welfare state is here to stay, regardless of your or my opinion regarding it. Now what? I think it best to concentrate on second-best alternatives to lower the cost and improve the lives of people.

For instance, instead of focusing on the assistance why not focus on the causes of poverty and unemployment.

I’d like to see libertarians in all parties running on policies to reduce poverty and unemployment first. Dismantle the welfare state by dismantling the need for one.

Here are some random ideas.

End Welfare for the Rich

Instead of focusing on welfare for the poor why not start the ball rolling by abolishing welfare for the wealthy? End all the subsidies and special privileges given to the economic 1%. Elon Musk has collected something like $5-$7 billion in government hand outs and tax breaks.

The Hill noted, regarding Musk’s various businesses “not a single one of them would get funding in a competitive private capital market if it weren’t for massive (and I do mean massive) taxpayer-funded government subsidies.”

Consider the open scramble of Amazon to secure taxpayer funding for a second headquarters. Jeff Bezos is proudly sticking up taxpayers by demanding special privileges for himself which are denied to competitors — and star-struck politicians are happy to grant them. Josh Barro noted: “ the subsidy package Amazon has been promised is not $1.5 billion, even though that’s a number a lot of people are throwing around. It’s closer to $3 billion — $1.7 billion from the state and a further $1.3 billion from the city.” And that’s just the subsidies for New York.

Professional sports teams are the playground of the super wealthy. These owners are not just millionaires — a million here or there wouldn’t do it. According to Forbes “the average MLB team is worth $1.645 billion” and revenue averaged $315 million. The last place Miami Marlins still sold for $1.2 billion in spite of their low ranking.

Given the cost of these toys for rich boys it’s no surprise that in 2006:

New sports facilities costing at least $200 million each have been completed or are under way in Baltimore, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Nashville, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, D.C., and are in the planning stages in Boston, Dallas, Minneapolis, New York, and Pittsburgh. Major stadium renovations have been undertaken in Jacksonville and Oakland. Industry experts estimate that more than $7 billion will be spent on new facilities…

There is nothing wrong with spending money on lucrative businesses that double as hobbies — if you are spending your own money. But as Brookings noted “Most of this $7 bill will come from public sources.” Billions more in handouts to the rich and famous.

I’m not against reducing taxes, I am against reducing them for one big business while still imposing them on everyone else. That’s not tax cuts, that’s welfare.

Most redistribution of wealth in the U.S. is going up the economic ladder, not down. It’s not the poor who are the problem but the wealthy. They are getting massive handouts and we should start there.

Of course, much of that is done in ways that are not immediately obvious and that takes us to other areas of change needed.

Take the money saved by ending welfare for the rich and use it to reduce taxes that directly impede employment, increasing the number of jobs available, thus reducing the need for welfare.

Occupational Licensing

Occupational Licensure is out of control. It is being used by special interests to limit competition in certain professions and to raise the income of those privileged enough to hold a license. The Obama White House issued an excellent report on how licensing laws are hurting the poor.

Licensing impacts the poor in two ways. First, it drives up the costs of hiring individuals in these professions making it less affordable to poor people. Second, it drives up the cost of entering these professions making those jobs less accessible to the poor. The Obama White House warned unnecessary licensing:

Often requires unnecessary training, lengthy delays, or high fees. This can in turn artificially create higher costs for consumers and prohibit skilled American workers like florists or hairdressers from entering jobs in which they could otherwise excel.

Research shows that licensing can not only reduce total employment in licensed professions, but also that unlicensed workers earn roughly 7 percent lower wages than licensed workers with similar levels of education, training, and experience. In addition, the patchwork of state-by-state licensing rules leads to dramatically different requirements for the same occupations depending on the state in which one lives, burdening workers who aim to move across state lines — including, for example, military spouses who move frequently.

Licensing excludes the poor from working, thus reducing their income levels, while making it more expensive for them to hire the services they may need. Congressman Dwight Evans (D-PA) accurately noted licensing is “ a barrier for entrepreneurs to enter an occupation — especially low-income and immigrant workers.”

Make Housing Affordable

We need to look closely at how housing regulations and land use laws are driving up the cost of housing. Numerous studies have been done by respected liberal think tanks and academics about how the over-regulation of housing is harming the poor by driving up housing costs.

The worst example (in terms of impact on the poor) is the naive laws passed by left activists in San Francisco. These laws were being passed while I lived in SF and I tried to explain that they would driving up housing costs substantially. The activists all assured me utopia would be the result not apartments renting for $5000 per month.

But, looking at rents in the Castro today I see monthly rents at $6,900; $5,800; $8,000; $6,200, etc. The most affordable in that area currently on the market is $2,800.

Who benefits? The main beneficiaries were the Yuppies who could afford to buy houses, condos or buildings in the 80s and who then regulated out competition pushing up prices, given themselves windfall profits and excluding everyone else. Once again the regulatory state transferred wealth from the poor to the rich.

We are seeing reforms pushed from previous friends of the regulatory state. In Oregon the House Speaker Tina Kotek (D) is pushing reform proposals to reduce regulation and restrictions on the creation of housing. Some of the most radical reforms in a deregulatory direction were done by the Minneapolis City Council — which doesn’t have a single Republican holding office.

Overhauling Criminal Justice

We need massive overhauls of the legal system, which currently means poor people charged with crimes are getting screwed. A lot of Koch money is going to projects meant to do this. Libertarians should be in the forefront pushing for legal reform and ending the massive incarceration rates in this country. We need to make sure capital punishment is abolished in all states and have to push for the legalization of all drugs. The DEA and the multi-billion “drug war” industry has to be dismantled. Those funds should be returned to taxpayers and taxes lowered to spur on more economic growth.

Similarly we must look at the vicious role played by public workers unions in pushing up incarceration rates. In particular unions representing prison guards and law enforcement are pushing for increasingly authoritarian laws and for higher and higher incarceration rates — measures which make the unions more powerful, but hurt the poor most of all.

And, of course, it long past due to end the destructive war on drugs. Decriminalizing in Portugal benefitted everyone, except Drug Warrios, and brought down the use of these drugs while reducing crime and saving billions. After years of mimicking the failed polices America pioneered with violent Drug Warriors waging war on users and peddlers Portugal went a completely different way and implemented a libertarian solution.

Legalize Sex Workers

We should look at the end of the contradictory, criminal prosecution of sex workers, many of whom are individuals of limited income. For them arrest is highly expensive and detrimental. The law is also contradictory. If A is paid $200 to have sex with B it is a crime, unless it is filmed then it’s protected by the First Amendment.

Redistribute State Wealth

I think we need to consider something like the Alaska Fund proposal that libertarians passed there. Revenue given to the state for mineral rights are invested and a portion of those investments are given to each citizen once a year. It fluctuates but has been $1000 to $2000 per year. Such payments have little impact for the rich but huge impact for the poor. In 2015 it was just over $2000.

Hilariously Vox called the Alaska Fund “an amazing socialist miracle,” never mentioning the role Libertarian Dick Randolph played in the state legislature to pass this proposal.

But, the governor and Republican legislators are now pillaging the fund for the state. In 2017 the payment was set at $2,300 per person and the legislature cut it in half. In 2016 it was estimated at $2052 and the Governor vetoed it and it ended up at $1022 instead. These funds should go directly to the people and the politicians should be forbidden to touch it.

My point is libertarians need to outline a set of proposals that are directly meant to increase opportunity for the poor and to reduce legal disadvantages imposed on them. Then let the welfare state wither away because it isn’t needed. Don’t dismantle the welfare before addressing the problems making welfare necessary, dismantle poverty instead.

Help support these columns please donate on our page at Patreon.