patrick.net

Though everyone would agree in principle that you can’t get something for nothing, it seems this truth gets completely forgotten the moment government spending comes up. “How could you be against Internet infrastructure?” people might say. “Don’t you care about Internet access?” Of course I do. But I also recognize that money spent on Internet access is money that can’t be spent on food, healthcare, education, or housing. And unlike the proponents of these programs, I don’t presume to know what consumers most urgently need. ...

So, how do we systematically determine which uses of resources are the most valuable to consumers? With the government, this is impossible. Politicians and planners are simply “groping in the dark,” as the economist Ludwig von Mises put it. Sure, they’ve got all sorts of statistics, but the statistics paint at best a blurry picture of the relative needs of consumers.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: the market. On the market, profits and losses signal to entrepreneurs the relative value consumers place on different goods and services. These signals lead to a remarkable coordination between the needs of consumers and what gets produced. It’s not perfect, of course, but at least there is a mechanism for rationally allocating resources to meet the most urgent needs of consumers as best as possible. ...

The fact is, free-market proponents do care about human welfare. In fact, it is precisely because we care that we are against government spending! The question is not whether to have government-funded initiatives or let people suffer, but whether to have the government or the market allocate resources.

A proper understanding of economics, we believe, leads to the conclusion that market allocations tend to be better for the well-being of everyone than government allocations. Thus, far from being an act of misanthropy, our opposition to government spending actually stems from the very concern for human welfare that the left erroneously thinks they have a monopoly on.

All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?

Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.

How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)

How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?

Nothing.

How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.

For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.

Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.

I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?

Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.

What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.

In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.

Nobody made that point yesterday.

What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.