Socialists Are Just In a Hurry

On the continuum between anarchy and socialism, each if us has a discrete position.

There are no anarchists reading this blog, and only a few socialists. Liberals approach the socialist side and they approach that side with less fear than do those of us closer to the anarchy wing.

We are arguing degrees of regulation. I contend that a most recent law (Obamacare) can, if upheld, permit government to order private individuals (not commonly defined as participating in “interstate commerce”,) to purchase a specific privately produced product, can then do anything it likes — purchase electric toothbrushes, purchase condoms…you name it.

If there is a limit to what can be government ordered, I would appreciate someone telling me where in law and literature, is the limit? If “providing for the General Welfare” means doing whatever government deems to be good for the public welfare, where is the limit to that power in law or literature?

As we live past the common understanding of words as they were written more than 200 years ago, we see that a government far from the people has grown very near to the people in every respect, and as it grows nearer it does things to us under the mantle of doing things for us.

The 10th Amendment provides that more power should exist in local government because they more likely represent local customs and desires — so states have commonly accepted differing rules for marriage, education, death penalties, building codes, general criminality and police powers, etc.

Those things make sense, as does having a common government provide for the common defense. The lines got blurred many years ago as I mentioned earlier (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)) and were further blurred by the interstate highway development and the use of federal money to “influence” local rules — as in the speed limits.

(And now in education with “grants” for Race to the Top, a worthy goal deftly executed, but still overreaching in my opinion.)

Conservatives, generally, push against expansion of federal power and in favor of local control, knowing that popular movements must make changes gradually.

Liberals, generally pull for greater single-lever control, so that they can push only one lever and change things to their liking overnight.

Who Did That?

The discussion of eliminating “needless” “unnecessary” and “counterproductive” regulation in government, as proposed by President Obama, begs the question: Who is it that supported the passing and implementation of those regulations that we now seek to deem “(needless) (unnecessary)(counter-productive) regulation?”

Conservatives?

Let me think about this for awhile…

Anarchy? No!

I am sometimes accused on other blogs as being the culprit who supports anarchy.

Hardly, although I am much closer to that position than most. Certainly, all liberals.

Yes, I believe that from a moralistic position, government is immoral – because, as George Washington is reputed to have said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” (http://fq1.us/5x)

And, like fire, it is also a necessity, and most useful when contained.

As I have noted, Liberals and I part company as to where the fire will be contained. Liberals support an unlimited definition of “General Welfare” and “Interstate Commerce” – definitions that, as the Mandatory Participation section of ObamaCare demonstrates, includes us all if we are involved in interstate commerce at all.

In fact, since the 40s, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), even NOT being involved in interstate commerce means you are involved in interstate commerce. ObamaCare is a step just a bit further from not participating in interstate commerce to not doing anything but breathing.

So much for ANY limit on the government.

Liberals support “appropriate regulatory oversight.” I might seriously disagree with how the term “appropriate regulatory oversight” might be defined.

Even President Obama is trying to find the new “appropriate” level, and admitting the current level may be too high. To many on this. board, we have too few regulations and oversight.

I would suggest, for example, that the word “appropriate” does not include, for example, the numbers “1099.”

I do not support anarchy, no government.

Liberals apparently support no limits on government – whatever term you wish to use for that position.

 

SCORE!!!!!!

One of the most popular tracts currently for sale in France is a mere 14 pages of text by an old (95) hero of France, a fine Leftist of great reputation named Stephane Hessel.

In the tract, Hessel pleads for continuation of massive public spending in the face of austerity, writing, “How can there not be enough money to maintain and extend these achievements?”

To which, writing in the Weekly Standard, Christopher Caldwell, answers: “There is not enough money because the production of rights and benefits has outstripped the production of wealth.”

Precisely.