patrick.net

Kevin,

I like the way you think. But I think you are mistaken about the Constitution. Things that ought not be forgotten have fallen out of memory. For example: What would Grover do?

http://mises.org/story/3627

But even if you do believe the FEDs can make big rules and programs, you are correct, the states have a right to override a Fed rule/program. It is already happening with Medical Marijuana. Good point!

I'm definitely not mistaken about what the Constitution says, and the SCOTUS has held up those principals time and time again whenever states' rights cases have been brought before it. There is nothing that restricts the role of federal government -- only checks to ensure that states can always overrule it (except on specific issues like interstate commerce).

Now, there's nothing wrong with personally believing that the role of the federal government should be limited, but the constitution itself says very little about what the government's role actually will be. This is a good thing, since the role of government must change over time as society and science evolves.

A perfect example of such an issue is pollution. There is no market force to prevent pollution, and the only non-government activity that can contain it is an angry mob.

In most cases, you'd just want to leave this issue up to the states, right?

So what do you do when people in Ohio are dumping poison into the ohio river and causing the deaths of people and crops in Kentucky?

Kentucky can't really sanction trading with Ohio (it turns out that they DON'T have the right to do that, right there in the constitution). They don't have much recourse at all.

This wasn't an issue in the 1700s. Hell, it didn't really become an issue until the industrial revolution, and didn't reach a breaking point until the late 60s. Thank God for Richard Nixon, eh?

So, yeah, if you want to argue the merits of large active government vs. small government, feel free. There are plenty of legitimate arguments on either side of the argument. Just please don't make the claim that government must be small because the constitution says so.

So, yeah, if you want to argue the merits of large active government vs. small government, feel free. There are plenty of legitimate arguments on either side of the argument.

completely agree...how much govt is needed depends on the challenges at a given point of time and the need of the people. people who want the smallest possible govt ( no govt) should immigrate to somalia or some other third world country where there is no govt and its completely free market and free world :-)

The idiots who always scream about the govt taking away thier freedoms don't even realize that its the govt which makes thier freedoms possible thought law enforcement ( police), regulation, consumer protection, judicial system for fairness...etc

Remove the govt and whole system and you will see that we are no different than any third world country ( rememeber how people were looting left and right during katrina..is that what you want)

Kevin,

SCOTUS is not always right. Neither am I and neither are you. For many years everyone understood the US Congress could not spend money except on few specific circumstances. Did you read what Grover Cleveland wrote?

We already have laws that allow individuals, companies and states to sue others for damages such as those caused by pollution. If they were taken to court and forced to pay everyone would take notice.

Homeowner,

This is the country we have and I like it. Perhaps the people who like big government should try living in China? Or perhaps if you like bigger government why not make your state the big government state. Call your state representatives and get some big government bills like comprehensive health care for everyone and high minumum wage (hope your state doesn't go bankrupt and all the businesses leave for greener pastures in the meantime) Just don't force big government on the rest of us (especially if you are not a resident of my state).

2ndClassCitizen says

SCOTUS is not always right.

How so? The constitution says that they're the final word, so how are they not "right"? Just because you disagree with their rulings doesn't make their rulings less "right".

2ndClassCitizen says

For many years everyone understood the US Congress could not spend money except on few specific circumstances. Did you read what Grover Cleveland wrote?

Since day one the opinion was pretty firmly divided between those who wanted a strong, large federal government (i.e. federalists) and those who wanted the states to do more. There has never been a time in history where separation of powers wasn't a major concern.

The simple fact of the matter is that when everyone lived on self-sustaining farms, there wasn't much need for a government to do much of anything. Trying to compare what was necessary in Cleveland's time to what is necessary today is absurd.

2ndClassCitizen says

We already have laws that allow individuals, companies and states to sue others for damages such as those caused by pollution. If they were taken to court and forced to pay everyone would take notice.

Well, no, because that was exactly what was tried and it failed. Proving that some individual company is responsible for river pollution is damned near impossible, which makes winning a court case damned near impossible, and even if it did work all you would have is a reactive system, and reactive systems have been proven time and time again to not be effective deterrents.

2ndClassCitizen says

This is the country we have and I like it. Perhaps the people who like big government should try living in China?

The United States has had "big government" since well before you were born -- unless possibly if you're over 100 years of age. I like our country too, for the most part, but I also don't have an irrational attachment to it.

I'm all for letting people "choose" what kind of government they want by giving much more power to the states, but to do that you really need to break up the union. It's simply not possible for states to self-govern when they can't have their own military, their own currency, or the freedom to negotiate international treaties.

50 separate countries (that is "states", in the original sense of the term) sounds like a damned good idea, actually.

Kevin says

2ndClassCitizen says

SCOTUS is not always right.

How so? The constitution says that they’re the final word, so how are they not “right”? Just because you disagree with their rulings doesn’t make their rulings less “right”.

*Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence stated it correctly that humans are given certain rights, and governments have no right to alienate them. The Constitution is an attempt to prevent government from alienating those rights. It may have failed to do that (or our ancestors failed to enforce it) but right is still right. SCOTUS is not the final authority. Declaration of Independence elegantly describes the fact that all rights are given to humans. It also says it is up to us to force government to NOT infringe on these rights.

Other than threats of violence or imprisonment for opposition of government, perhaps the biggest way governments alienate citizens rights is by forced taxation, forced spending (such as forcing people to buy insurance, smoke detectors or anything for that matter), and currency devaluation (inflation through printing money or lending money that doesn't exist). Our government and its authorized agent the FED are alienating our rights. Just because they have been doing it for over 100 years or SCOTUS says its OK does not make it right. Right is right regardless of who agrees or doesn't agree.

2ndClassCitizen says

For many years everyone understood the US Congress could not spend money except on few specific circumstances. Did you read what Grover Cleveland wrote?

Since day one the opinion was pretty firmly divided between those who wanted a strong, large federal government (i.e. federalists) and those who wanted the states to do more. There has never been a time in history where separation of powers wasn’t a major concern.
The simple fact of the matter is that when everyone lived on self-sustaining farms, there wasn’t much need for a government to do much of anything. Trying to compare what was necessary in Cleveland’s time to what is necessary today is absurd.

*What is absurd is trying to say that a more diversified economy must be taxed and controlled by a stronger central government. In fact it would stand to reason that a less diversified economy would be more vulnerable to deviant behaviors and people with scarce resources taking advantage of others. What is also absurd is the idea that in Grover Clevelands time "EVERYONE" lived on self-sustaining farms. Yeah right, New York city didnt exist. Fisherman didn't exist, railroads didn't exist, international trade didn't exist. Oh wait. IT DID! Grover was right then and if he were here now his position would be just a relevant today.
2ndClassCitizen says

We already have laws that allow individuals, companies and states to sue others for damages such as those caused by pollution. If they were taken to court and forced to pay everyone would take notice.

Well, no, because that was exactly what was tried and it failed. Proving that some individual company is responsible for river pollution is damned near impossible, which makes winning a court case damned near impossible, and even if it did work all you would have is a reactive system, and reactive systems have been proven time and time again to not be effective deterrents.

*I didn't know it failed. So if my neighbor spills diesel fuel in my back yard and all my trees die I can't sue for damages or go the nice route and work with him to go about restitution?

Reactive system? So instead we should ban the ownership of diesel so no one can spill it? Is that the kind of government you want? I'll take my chances with my neighbor, he is easier to work with than the government.

One of the biggest problems with big government is that if the government is corrupt or not working the best interest of the people there is no recourse for the citizens except revolution.
2ndClassCitizen says

This is the country we have and I like it. Perhaps the people who like big government should try living in China?

The United States has had “big government” since well before you were born — unless possibly if you’re over 100 years of age. I like our country too, for the most part, but I also don’t have an irrational attachment to it.
I’m all for letting people “choose” what kind of government they want by giving much more power to the states, but to do that you really need to break up the union. It’s simply not possible for states to self-govern when they can’t have their own military, their own currency, or the freedom to negotiate international treaties.
50 separate countries (that is “states”, in the original sense of the term) sounds like a damned good idea, actually.

2ndClassCitizen says

*Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence stated it correctly that humans are given certain rights, and governments have no right to alienate them. The Constitution is an attempt to prevent government from alienating those rights. It may have failed to do that (or our ancestors failed to enforce it) but right is still right. SCOTUS is not the final authority. Declaration of Independence elegantly describes the fact that all rights are given to humans. It also says it is up to us to force government to NOT infringe on these rights.

So this is getting pretty esoteric. You're arguing for the moral "right" and I'm arguing for the legal. Yes, of course "the people" have the final say on anything (as they do in EVERY society -- history is full of revolutions), but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the federal government under our current constitution has the authority to create new programs.

2ndClassCitizen says

What is absurd is trying to say that a more diversified economy must be taxed and controlled by a stronger central government. In fact it would stand to reason that a less diversified economy would be more vulnerable to deviant behaviors and people with scarce resources taking advantage of others. What is also absurd is the idea that in Grover Clevelands time “EVERYONE” lived on self-sustaining farms. Yeah right, New York city didnt exist. Fisherman didn’t exist, railroads didn’t exist, international trade didn’t exist. Oh wait. IT DID! Grover was right then and if he were here now his position would be just a relevant today.

Not even close. Cleveland died in 1908 -- before we all had automobiles, before we had machine guns, before we had electricity in most of our homes (hell, in many places before we even had indoor plumbing), before women could vote. We only had 88M people living in this country and, while not "everyone" lived on farms, 65% of us did, whereas today less than 10% do.

You simply can not compare society today with society of 100+ years ago.

To use your own argument against you, all that matters is what's "right", not idealism. Things do change, and no human ideology has been right at all times in history.

2ndClassCitizen says

I didn’t know it failed. So if my neighbor spills diesel fuel in my back yard and all my trees die I can’t sue for damages or go the nice route and work with him to go about restitution?

Oh, your neighbor you could probably sue -- but good luck proving that it was the paper mill and not the coal mine that ruined your drinking water. Do you understand why the EPA was created? It wasn't because Nixon hated the free market.

Kevin,

Oh well, if it is "legal" then OK :)
But: Legal or illegal is used by the powers that be to justify or condemn according to their agenda. For example, it was illegal to transport a slave to freedom, but it was the right thing to do. It is legal to sell mortgage or take a mortgage on a grossly overpriced house that could never truly be paid back but it is not the right thing to do. Legal means little when men decide what is and isn't legal.

Modern society doesn't justify the tyranny of taxation any more than pre-civil war era economy justifies slavery. When people are not free to work and keep the fruits of their labor their right to life and liberty has been alienated. Grover Cleveland understood this, not because they didn't have machine guns and automobiles but because he was taught it. Sadly people today are more likely interested in the latest sporting event or celebrity gossip than in understanding and preserving freedom.

The EPA? Yeah, a great track record there. They've done one heck of a job. Red tape so thick superman strains at it and yet our lakes, rivers etc... are worse than ever. But I'm sure if we just gave them more funding they would solve everything. Maybe we need a pollution Czar!