BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Liberty & Limited Government Archive

Sunday

16

October 2011

2

COMMENTS

Tea Party, OWS Congruence Greatly Overstated

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Some, particularly libertarians who can find at least some ideological agreement in either group, think there is hope for the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and its various offshoots) to work together somehow. They base this off an assessment of common ground expressed by this image:

Obviously it’s difficult generalizing movements that have significant diversity of views even within their membership, and the OWS crowd is particularly difficult to pin down. But insofar as their views can even be deciphered, the image seems a fairly accurate representation. But it’s also incredibly misleading.

Yes, there is overlap in what folks are upset about, but there is virtually none in the proposed solutions. Consider the same image with the logical solutions added. The Tea Party side would read, “The government has way too much power, so it should be reduced and the government should therefore be smaller.” And the Occupier side would read, “Large corporations have too much power, so it should be reduced through greater regulation, and thus a bigger government.” There is no common ground here, because the prescriptions are exactly the opposite of one another.

Occupy Wall Street is a big government movement at a time when big governments are imploding the world over. It is the last gasp of a dying ideology, lashing out in rage at its own impotence in the face of necessary cuts in government spending. They are the American equivalent of violent Greek protesters incapable of accepting the inherent internal contradictions of large welfare states that were behind the nation’s insolvency. Pretending that advocates for limited government can work with these people in any way, shape or form is an exercise in self-delusion.

Friday

30

September 2011

2

COMMENTS

How's That Constitutional Rule Working Out?

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

When the new Congress took office, they instituted a rule requiring newly introduced legislation to cite Constitutional authority. So what has been the result? Not surprisingly, a significant number fail to properly identify specific Constitutional authority for legislative action. Research by the Republican Study Committee found that:

  • 3 bills cite only the Preamble to the Constitution
  • 84 bills cite only Article 1, which creates the Legislative Branch
  • 58 bills cite only Article 1, Section 1, which grants all legislative powers to Congress
  • 470 bills cite only Article 1, Section 8, which is the list of specific powers of Congress, without citing a specific clause
  • 539 bills cite Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which grants Congress its taxing power and contains the “general welfare” and “common defense” language [Editorial note: The “general welfare” clause is a qualifier to the numerated powers, not an additional grant in its own right]
  • 247 bills cite Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, the “necessary and proper” clause, without citing a “foregoing power” as required by Clause 18.
  • 309 bills cite two or more of the “general welfare” clause, commerce clause, or the “necessary and proper” clause.
  • 87 bills cite Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, which provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.
  • 210 bills cite Article 4, Section 3, which provides that Congress hall have the power to make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the United States
  • 252 bills cite an amendment to the Constitution. For example, 54 cite the 10th Amendment (power not delegated to the federal government) [Editorial note: What could possibly be the reason for this?], 30 cite the 14th Amendment (“equal protection, etc.”), and 64 cite the 16th Amendment (income tax).

Please note: Some bills cite numerous sections of or amendments to the Constitution, and may be listed more than once above

It should come as no surprise that so many Congressmen fail to grasp the point of citing the Constitution, which is to identify specific authority or not bother introducing the bill at all. For a long time, members of both the Legislative and Executive branches have abdicated their Constitutional duties to the Supreme Court. They believe that they can simply pass whatever they want, and let the court sort out what is Constitutional and what is not. It is this attitude that the rule was attempting to help change.

If it was the intention of the Founders to give the courts sole concern over questions of the Constitution, they wouldn’t have bothered swearing anyone else to an oath to uphold the document. In reality, all elected officials are supposed to do their due diligence in upholding the Constitution by only acting within its bounds.

Obviously, this rule has not produced a profound shift in the attitudes of lawmakers, but at least it provides an opportunity to name and shame them. I’d love to see an individual or organization do the work and provide research more specifically tied to individual members, so that we can see who really takes seriously their oath, and who does not.

Monday

20

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Is Iceland’s Constitutional Crowd-Sourcing a Good Idea?

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Iceland is writing a new Constitution, and is taking a decidedly 21st approach to the task:

Iceland is months deep in a project to crowdsource the writing of a new constitution. The recovering European nation’s existing constitution is essentially a carbon copy of Denmark’s, Iceland claiming independence from Denmark in 1944. There were slight adjustments, like replacing the word “king” with “president,” but after the financial crisis that brought Iceland’s economy to its knees in 2008, the country’s decided to start from scratch. The approach uses a combination of social media platforms–Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr–to gather suggestions from the citizens, and members of a consitutional council post drafts on their website every week.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. On the one hand, I like seeing the power of new technology being applied to old problems, political or otherwise. This will certainly increase the number of people involved in drafting their new Constitution than otherwise would have been possible. On the other hand, the big question is whether this approach will produce a better document.

I honestly don’t have an answer to that question. I can see potential dangers in popular passions having too much sway, but the process is not actually democratic (long understood, since Aristotle, to be a bad form of government compared to constitutional republics), as the public is merely giving their input to a constitutional council. How much they are listening is not known to me. Alternatively, it may be that more voices will strengthen the document by enhancing the likelihood of spotting weaknesses, or by settling the question of public interpretation (wherein what is intended is not always what is later understood) up front – that is, if the public is going to interpret Clause X to mean Y, but you really want them to understand it to mean Z, you can find that out before the document is finalized and correct it.

Ultimately, the content of the document will matter far more than the novelty of its construction, and the form of the government need not necessarily be related to that method. A purely democratic method could produce a solid representational document. Likewise, a document written by representatives, as the US Constitution was, could turn out to lack the necessary checks and balances and be overly vulnerable to democratic passions.

For what it’s worth, I scanned a draft that was posted online and wasn’t particularly impressed. With the caveat that I was reading a translation, there were a number of potential ambiguities I saw and a lot I didn’t like ideologically, such as inclusion of minutiae that could leave the country unable to adapt to changing circumstances, as well as the outlining of various “positive rights” – which means the “right” to be given something by the government, i.e. taxpayers. I don’t live in Iceland, and there’s no reason why they must accept my view that real rights can only be so-called “negative rights” derived from natural rights theory, but I just don’t see that form of government being sustainable. But to each their own.

Though if anyone starts taking Fareed Zakaria seriously – something which I caution against out of the principle that fluff nonsense should not be listened to – and tries to do the same here in America, I’ll have a lot more to say on that matter.

Tuesday

29

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

Too Much Outrage, Too Little Time

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

First, a Delaware man battles big government, which is bravely protecting the peasants from basketball hoops:

More on that story here.

Next, Reason.tv and Radley Balko give the 3 Worst Cases of Police Abuse in 2011:

One particularly egregious case highlighted in the video is the shooting murder of John T. Williams (which actually occurred in 2010), a homeless woodcarver, for carrying a legal knife in a non-threatening manner (the knife was folded closed). The murderer with a badge, Ian Birk, was not charged with any crime despite a finding by the police department that the shooting was “unjustified.” He has since resigned from his position, and one can only hope that society will shun him for the rest of his miserable life. It’s the least of what he deserves.

Sadly, this kind of injustice is all too commonly allowed to occur in the nation’s police forces. Police turn a blind eye to police misconduct. Prosecutors refuse to go after those who they rely on to gather evidence and build their cases, even when they act with such gross disregard for the rights of citizens. Such abuses cannot be separated from the larger problem of big government and its negative impact on the welfare of the country, despite the best efforts of many law and order conservatives to glorify anyone who wears a badge. While there our many fine officers doing their best to uphold the law, the police institutions are more often than not part of the problem and in desperate need of reform.

Sunday

6

February 2011

1

COMMENTS

Happy 100th Birthday, Ronaldus Magnus

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Were he still with us, today would be the 100th birthday of one Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States and one of the greatest occupants of the Oval Office in the last century.

In honor of this day, the Reagan Foundation has posted a number of videos. This one is narrated by Fred Thompson:

This next video will be playing before the Super Bowl kick-off today:

Finally, this tribute video is actually a few years old, but it’s a favorite of mine:

Sunday

16

January 2011

0

COMMENTS

Government Puts Halt to Rogue Couple Who Feeds Poor

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Big government inevitably crowds out private charity, and because government, which spends the other people’s money, is less competent than private actors allocating their own resources, that means a worse social safety net than if government just got out of the way. This outrageous story is the latest example:

Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.

That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their “Feed a Friend” effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.

Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.

The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because “poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care.”

You want to know something else interesting about poor and homeless people? They’re the least likely to have access to food.

Thursday

30

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

WaPo’s Boy Wonder “Confused” by Constitution Written “Over 100 Years Ago”

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

NewsBusters recounts the forehead-slapping  encounter on MSNBC:

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein appeared on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, Thursday, to mock the incoming Republicans for their stated fixation on the Constitution, asserting that the document is rather old and “confusing.” MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell dismissed the GOP effort as “lip service” and wondered if it was a “gimmick.”

After playing clips of Republicans claiming they would reject legislation that couldn’t be justified constitutionally, Klein complained, “The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.“

“More than 100 years ago,” says the Washington Post savant who is at least 5 years old.

Debates over what the Constitution says really don’t differ all that much between people who actually bother to read or take its history seriously. What differs from person to person is how much they even care what it says.

The document itself isn’t particularly confusing. Sure, there are always debatable details and interpretations of particular phrases, but the answers to the big questions are all well known, if not as acceptable. We know, for instance, that the Constitution gives government certain enumerated powers, and reserves the rest for the people and the States. If the power isn’t listed, the federal government can’t do it. Ezra Klein and other statists don’t like this constraint, so they simply wave their hands over how “confusing” the whole mess is and proceed as if it doesn’t exist.

As we saw repeatedly in the last Congress, Democrats were open about their disdain for Constitutional restrictions on the power of Congress (“Are you serious? Are you serious?”). They didn’t bother debating what it says or meant, but contested the very idea that it mattered at all. Working to change this Congressional attitude is no gimmick; it’s just long overdue.

Thursday

23

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Abolish the FCC

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Fox reports on Republican efforts to FCC plans to snare the internet in the regulatory web of big government:

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution. If President Obama vetoes the resolution, Congress could overturn it by a two-thirds majority.

While blocking the FCC’s Internet rules appear to be a longshot, Republicans aren’t backing down.

Sens. John Ensign and Kay Bailey Hutchison plan to introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop the ruling from going into effect.

“This vote is an unprecedented power-grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by Chairman Genachowski,” Hutchison said in a statement, referring to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi. “The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority and these actions threaten the very future of the technology.”

…Rep. Fred Upton, who will oversee the powerful House Energy and Commerce in the next Congress, has pledged to summon all members of the FCC to Capitol Hill to explain their move while working to block the plan “by any legislative means necessary.”

While withholding judgment on just how much backbone we’re likely to see from Republicans, it’s good that there’s at least the rhetoric of serious opposition to this move. And while I think the Congressional Review Act is an under-utilized tool for reigning in bureaucratic power grabs, more can be done here. The ultimate goal should simply be to abolish the FCC.

The FCC is an outmoded bureaucracy designed to regulate a state of technology that is no longer exists.  It’s simply not relevant to the modern world. Cable, satellite TV, and even internet radio have negated any need to regulate the “public airwaves.” What limited useful functionality they might still be able to serve, such as selling broadcast licenses, can be done by some other department, while the rest of the FCC’s docket (censorship and bureaucratic control) needs to go the way of the dodo.

It’s great that Republicans are opposing this ruling, but they might as well go big or go home. Abolish the FCC.

Sunday

12

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Don’t Fall Into the Keynesian, Demand-Side Trap

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Liberty & Limited Government, Taxes

This post from Pejman Yousefzadeh on the tax deal is a few days old, but it’s worth talking about because it illustrates a trap into which conservatives too often fall. His point is that the temporary extension of the tax rates likely will not help the economy. I don’t dispute this, as whatever benefit the tax rate extension provides comes from the fact that it means taxes won’t be going up. It’s good only insofar as it prevents politicians from doing something really bad, at least for another 2 years.

What I take issue with is his reasoning. Here’s what he says:

The thing is, a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts will not be enough to stimulate the economy. Per Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, consumption patters (sic) even in the aftermath of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts will be tempered by long term expectations that eventually, the tax cuts may be allowed to expire. As a consequence, consumers are more apt to save money that comes from a temporary tax cut, rather than spending it in order to offer the economy any kind of economic stimulus.

My problem is his implication that the primary benefits from cutting taxes comes from increases in consumption.  This is essentially the Keynesian view of economic growth. It is this consumption-based view of growth which has led both Bush and Obama to try “stimulating” the economy through gimmick rebates and handouts. Each attempt has failed more miserably than the last.

Just to be clear, I’m not disputing Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis (that personal decisions on spending are based not on current income, but long-term expectations),  just its relevance to this situation. It’s not germane here because even if it were not true and consumption would increase in response to a temporary extension, it wouldn’t have any significant pro-growth impact. Otherwise, the other stimulus attempts would have worked.

The benefit from lowering tax rates, particularly those on capital, comes when it reduces government disincentives to savings, investment and entrepreneurship. Increased consumption is just the consequences of growing the economy. To see it as something to try to increase in its own right is to implicitly admit the validity of the Keynesian, interventionist approach which has never worked.

Monday

4

October 2010

0

COMMENTS

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives