** forwarded as requested ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:04:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: Jim Burnes <jvb@ssds.com> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) If you want a responce post it publicly.

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote:

...

...

I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense.

The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff then get a Constitutional amendment passed.

Wow. He said it. This proves that Jim hasn't really read any history since public high school.

Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the constitution, much less say how it should be amended.

If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is in the interests of our general welfare. Madison explicitly addressed the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause.

Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their conclusion was not already decided.

The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal government. It is very specific. As Madison stated, if the general welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal government. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had said:

"The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it feels necessary."

"The powers of the federal government are as follows"

(1) (2) (3) etc

Which would be ridiculous on its face.

The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the Supreme Court. He eventually suceeded in appointing his socialist crony judges to "reinterpret" the constitution. The first result of this was that Social (in)Security was ruled constitutional because it was in "the general welfare".

This was probably the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The first nail was imposing huge export duties on cotton in order to limit demand outside the country -- in effect driving down cotton prices so it could be had cheaply by the northern industrial (clothing/textile) markets. Southern states saw this as blatant price controls. In their inability to change the taxes they sought to leave the union. A prime example of the old adage -- "the power to tax is the power to destroy". In this case it was destroying the union itself. Only after the war was on did the north use the anti-slavery propaganda to peddle their cause. And use it to good advantage they did. I'm glad the slaves were emancipated, but I wish it were done with less blood and more foresight.

Bear in mind that as a libertarian I view slavery as one of the ultimate evils. However, the northern industrialists had no leg to stand on because they were one of the prime beneficiaries of cheap labor and thus cheap cotton prices during the era of westward expansion. Never mind that only the wealthy in the south owned slaves. If that was so, why was the opposition to the feds so virulent?

By 1913, Jekyl Island was a done deal. The income tax and the federal reserve banking system were unleashed. A concise discussion of this is beyond the scope of this posting. Needless to say centralized federal power was on the move. The system of institutionalized fiat currency was one of the main causes of the 1929 crash that put Roosevelt in power. It was that "government breaks your leg, government hands you a crutch, government becomes savior" mentality that resulted in the endless cycle of market distortions and power grabs that put us where we are now.

Does this mean that Roosevelt was "evil". No. Just that, as one playwrite once said, "the conflict of good against good is much more interesting". Well-intentioned "good people" have contributed more to the misery of the human race that any other factor alone. I'm sure that Roosevelt felt he was doing "good" when he undid the Republic. His crowning achievment was his stacking of the Supreme Court and the resulting unlimited expansion of federal power. If this country survives Y2K it will have to contend with the issue that the scope of the federal government's power is not unlimited. Something has got to give. Y2K seems as likely a bifurcation and surfaction point as any.

Maybe Hettinga is right. Economics, like physics obeys the "reality is not an option" rule. When centralized bureacracy becomes too expensive the invisible hand will select something more efficient.

jim