Tag: limited government

“There ought to be a Law”. Think before you suggest.

The Constitution is a living document, which must be interpreted in accordance with the times to remain relevant. This is the continual drone of Washington’s political elite. This phrase is championed by Democratic Party nominated activist judges as well as those activist judges are nominated by RHINOS.  Lest anyone doubt, the constitution has a method for updating its language, built in.  It is the amendment process. It is difficult to accomplish since it requires super majorities. This was done precisely so that the latest fad can’t change the balance of power  and remove natural right.

It is a shame the judiciary has been permitted to distort the federal system.  Stare Decisis has been used to make permanent this judicial activism.  Courts bypass the enumerated powers limitation by citing the public welfare clause or misusing the interstate commerce clause sometimes for a good cause., but bad law even when well intended leads to future unintended consequences.  One need only read some of the cases applying the Civil Rights Act to private clubs to see the intellectual jujitsus employed by the Court  to reach a desired result. Ketchup moving through interstate commerce as a basis for utilizing the Interstate Commerce Clause, Really?  What’s next penumbra’s of amendments? Oh, that’s been done too. See Roe vs Wade.

The next time you hear “there ought to be a law, you should ask; is the proposed law a legitimate exercise of the power of the federal government or of any government?

Does any proposed law, fall under an enumerated federal power?  Does it violate any guaranteed personal freedoms. If it is a safety or educational issue, is it better addressed by a government closer to the people?

Yes, government is a use of force and as such must be used sparingly. If you use it continually, then you risk mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Tyranny isn’t limited to single dictators!

States joined together to form our union.  Our Founders believed the states that formed the federal government were closer to the people and should wield governmental authority unless it is given to the national government by a listed power.

Federal power is limited. Witness the 10th amendment. If federal power is interpreted too broadly, the tenth amendment is meaningless and the Constitutional intent is defeated.  If you want a more powerful federal government, secure enough support to amend the document.  It has been done.

So the moral of the story is; think before you say, “ there ought to be a law”.

If you are a liberal, a conservative; how will you feel, when your adversary controls government and wields that same power in a manner you believe damages you or limits your individual freedoms? Before you bellow “ there ought to be a law “, ask critical questions.

If you feel there is no power enumerated for your law and is there enough consensus, then do the right thing, amend the constitution?  If there is not enough popular clamor to amend, enjoy your God given, natural rights or use your liberty to be the change in your area, you want. Persuasion and private action may better serve your cause rather than the use of government force.

Have you Surrendered? Do you purport to be Libertarian or Conservative?

Remember, life is guaranteed to be safest securely snuggled deep within the confines of your favorite cave under a rock.  It is also extremely short. (Generally about 3 days before you expire from lack of water, but it’s awfully unsafe to venture outside and extremely stressful to carry back water, so stay safe!) Life will be short, unfulfilling, but guaranteed, safe and with no exasperating social relationships or progeny

Are you a small government Libertarian or Republican?  Have you found yourself uttering phrases like “bend the curve” and “social distancing”  Have you found yourself saying; “we have no choice, but to shut it all down” or “our Governor had no choice to keep people safe”!  I have been exchanging retorts with individuals on the left coast.  I cited data, which said the young and healthy have little” to fear from this virus.  They will experience light symptoms and post infection be able to return to their normal activities.    Meanwhile the coasts are awash in ” We’re all going to die and see the young are dying too” their comments reinforced by an enabling media too cowardly or greedy to inform.  It always amazes me how even on the hated right wing media ,print stories about a young worker or more sensational still a young doctor, nurse or healthcare worker, who died after hospitalization from “the virus.”  While my initial inclination was to make a flippant comment; what another influenza outbreak?  Understand, we had a difficult flu season here in NW Ohio.  I didn’t say anything like that, deciding this medical  topic hits a raw nerve, so people’s sensitivities should be respected.

The next comments especially from the Libertarian or Small government Republicans baffle me even more.  I have heard; “the government should just shut it all down” or even more uninformed, “the President should just shut the country down with a national stay at home order.”

Why does this distress me?  These people declare a belief in federalism, limited national government.  Is it alright that they support governor’s stay at home orders? Yes, but that viewpoint is not mine, I have a different public policy point of view! Support for a governor’s order at least shows a basic understanding of the concept of federalism. Your federal government is a government of limited powers.  It is based upon the concept that states bind together and grant limited authority to  the national government.  That branch of government is granted enumerated powers(THOSE SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION ).

Before the bicoastals go crazy let me explain. The Health and Welfare Clause is not grant of power.  Our Supreme Court sometimes uses it as a grant of power when it wants to legislate.  The power to legislate is a power the Court  does not have!  Congress makes the laws within the limits afforded it under the enumerated powers in the  Constitution.  Congress is limited too!  The Executive enforces the laws congress makes. (not just the ones the sitting executive/ president likes).  The Courts decide conflicts that arise between citizens within their limited jurisdiction.  When differences in rulings occur, a higher court settles the differences with the Supreme Court acting as the final arbiter of  inconsistent outcomes.  The Supreme Court and Appellate/intermediate level courts don’t create laws.  If it wasn’t considered by Congress and is within the scope of an enumerated power, then the Court should not decide the matter it must defer!  If  the law does not speak to this matter in dispute, then  the Congress has to decide whether a matter should be the subject of a law or not.  This is the dreaded Political question.

Politics has taken on a bad stigma.  It simply stated is who gets what, when and how.  We elect representatives to act within the scope of their authority and make political decisions, not judges and not Presidents.  The idea that government should be the economic manager is a 20th century idea.  We used to believe that the market would use its price structure to direct resources where they could best be used.  Now we have legislators, executives and all knowing judges deciding how resources, human, financial and even commodities should be allocated.

This phenomenon is never as obvious as during a crisis.  Despite data demonstrating that certain classes of individuals are more vulnerable to serious disease complications and that others will experience a short light illness and possibly be asymptomatic (approximately 79% of citizens should expect this light illness), we continue to listen to “the everyone is going to die” retorts emanating from the authoritarians.  We encourage our governors to make broad, sweeping limitations on our businesses and personal freedom.  Result, not a targeted sequeser of the vulnerable, their caretakers and members of their households with a limited targeted relief response, but instead mass hysteria, media sensationalism and mass hysteria as well as an economic shutdown of an estimated 31% of the national economy along with a 2 trillion dollar government giveaway program, which may begin to mitigate a portion of the economic chaos the public health response has wrought.

Yet you hear no one saying the “public health( Emperors ) professionals have no clothes”. Now with free money in play, when will it be “safe” to reopen the 31% of our shuttered economy.  Please note we already have 69% still working as essential without respect to whether they are health or age vulnerable.  I guess as long as the public has toilet paper and hand sanitizer and McDonald’s takeout, it doesn’t matter about the health of these expendables. How quick would you be willing to return, if you were being paid and told you would possibly die, if you return to work?  People still work with an eye toward incentives.  It is why price still rations scarce goods and services in a free market.

This entire episode will be judged by history.  How many could have been saved had two trillion dollars been otherwise directed, but stay safe!

Remember, life is guaranteed to be safest securely snuggled deep within the confines of your favorite cave under a rock.  It is also extremely short. (Generally about 3 days before you expire from lack of water, but it’s awfully unsafe to venture outside and extremely stressful to carry back water, so stay safe!) Life will be short, unfulfilling, but guaranteed, safe and with no exasperating social relationships or progeny!<H1>

What is the role of rationality, when all media and politicians use the emotional hook to push issues?

I have been arguing for a long time that far too much of our political discussions are emotionally based.  Harold Laswell said “politics is about who gets what, when, how.”  This was the standard definition of politics, which I learned forty five years ago as a Political Science major.  This means politics is involved with every aspect of our everyday lives.  We are far too quick to limit the meaning or understand the consequences of politics.

The United States has a Constitutionally limited federal government which results in a free market capitalist system of economics, however the limited nature of our federal government has been steadily eroded.  This has been accomplished by both our legislators, who are unwilling to make the difficult budgetary decisions their offices demand of them and the Courts, who insist on legislating from the bench and increasing the scope and size of government in a vain attempt to avert every citizen’s problem.

What has the use of the emotional hook meant to the everyday life of the US citizen.?   It has meant that decisions are more and more made at the whim of a group of elite politicians whipped into a frenzy by an over dramatized media.  The ultimate result is that personal decisions concerning allocation of your income and resources have been removed from your control and are now less based on rational personal benefit and an individual’s return on investment and more based upon a legislator of judge’s feelings about an issue.

Federal legislators decide issues based upon a snapshot of public opinion.   Federal Judges seem to believe they must act as super legislators and right all the wrongs of the country rather than apply existing law and so  they create new law.  What this means is there will continue to be more government involvement in your everyday life and ultimately this  “feeling centered decision making” may lead to the end to even of the semblance of free speech.

Dissent will be drowned out by the din created in a 24 hour media cycle. Rational individuals may well be dissuaded from voicing their views because they fear immediate economic or reputational damage should they voice disagreement with the current emotionalism of the moment.

Proponents of feeling based decision making believe it will create a more nurturing democratic government and will lead to a more humane society.   Democratic party politicians believe this nurturing view of government is popular among young unmarried bicoastal female voters, a group they consider to be in their tribe.   I contend this type of decision making is bad for all voters and will result in misallocation of both human and financial capital and ultimately a lowered standard of living for all in this country and throughout the world as well as a society where individuals  are afraid to express their opinions.

I have been reading a series of books about rational decision making.  Most recently I have been reading the book, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling .   There is value in the authors data driven analysis and the rationale approach he uses to generate his world survey questions and answers.   I worry that this author’s analysis is far too dependent on UN sources of data, because these data sources readily  available and he states are the  most comprehensive in scope. I do not share his confidence about how this data is collected and compiled.  Finally, I find some of the author’s concerns  to be as equally unsupported by causal data as he claims many current popular public opinions to be,eg. ( views on global warming and universal healthcare) (He readily admits that weather is subject to a great may variables and can’t be forecasted accurately, yet is ever so concerned about climate change.)I find many of his concerns to be personally intrusive,repugnant and left leaning.

The fact that I  favor a more  free and individually driven , yet rational allocation of economic resources doesn’t however mean I am a heartless and I am certainly not a populist.    I am a Constitutionalist.   Constitutionalist are frequently accused of lacking compassion for the downtrodden in our society or being bigoted because we don’t favor big government welfare programs and unlimited immigration.  I favor, as does our federal constitution a system, where individuals make their own decisions and believe that there are certain God given rights that belong solely to them.  The federal government should interfere in its citizens lives only in very limited and strictly defined areas enumerated by the Constitution. Other areas are reserved to the citizens until more authority is granted by the super majority required to adopt a constitutional amendment and even that authority should be restricted.  Some rights really are truly inalienable and non delegatable.

Factual information must be available to the public in order to allow each individual and organization to make rational personal economic and value choices.  I agree that decisions must be fact based, but values must also be incorporated into any decision making process.  This is the province of the individual.  It is the small decisions made by the many in their individual daily interests, that should shape our public policy.  Our Constitution allows for a limited federal government and leaves most authority with the States.  This allows for a variety of best practices and failures without universal consequences.

What seems like economic chaos or the lack of a comprehensive economic or governmental plan is actually a constantly adjusting web of individual decision making. This guarantees maximum benefit and freedom for all citizens. It is truly economic organization from what seems like unplanned chaos.  Unfettered emotionalism can cause rash decisions to be made by elitist representatives based upon the latest media whipped over dramatization.  The decisions feel good at the time, but lack checks and balances provided by the free market.  This type of decision making leads to unintended consequences, which could be avoided by utilizing a more limited and best practices and evaluation model.