I pulled this out of the “well regulated militia/bulwark against tyranny” thread, since it was tangentially related but not directly on topic, in the hope of saving a mode from having to prune it out himself.
The issue presented is whether one can oppose growth of government power without being an anarchist. I think one plainly can, though not all agree.
Lee, since your schedule didn’t allow you to start a new thread, I have.
First, compare the two bolded sentences above. I have to think that reading the former would keep you from writing the latter.
Second, let’s have just a bit of historical review. At the turn of the 20th century, the SCOTUS expanded application of the commerce clause, to include virtually any activity, even if it was not what any layman would call “interstate”. They reasoned that even strictly intrastate non-commercial activity could have consequences for interstate commercial activity, and so could fall within federal regulatory authority. It is this shift that paved the metaphorical way for the current environment in which moving sand on your own property or who you hire and fire becomes a federal matter literally.
This is an extension of federal power well beyond limits envisioned even by original advocates of strong federal government. This power is often applied arbitrarily or non-uniformly simply because different US attorneys use different standards for what they will or will not prosecute. One has prosecuted and impoverished a man simply for moving sand on his own property by arguing to the court that sand was a toxic substance. Other US attorneys offices, have no interest in those prosecutions. Certainly some agencies have bad actors who set out to manufacture evidence or purjure themselves for a prosecution, but that is more a chronic problem of human nature. The problems arises when even well meaning minions of the state are invested with such wide authority that they exercise it in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and not in a manner that a government should expect to treat free men.
To note that the current scope of federal power is too great, and that some agencies exercise that power in harsh and arbitrary ways is not an argument against all government. It is an argument against a governmental nanny that a healthy political body would not entrust with that sort of authority. It is an argument for limited government.
The issue presented is whether one can oppose growth of government power without being an anarchist. I think one plainly can, though not all agree.
I said:
I said:
I said:
I said:
Lee, since your schedule didn’t allow you to start a new thread, I have.
First, compare the two bolded sentences above. I have to think that reading the former would keep you from writing the latter.
Second, let’s have just a bit of historical review. At the turn of the 20th century, the SCOTUS expanded application of the commerce clause, to include virtually any activity, even if it was not what any layman would call “interstate”. They reasoned that even strictly intrastate non-commercial activity could have consequences for interstate commercial activity, and so could fall within federal regulatory authority. It is this shift that paved the metaphorical way for the current environment in which moving sand on your own property or who you hire and fire becomes a federal matter literally.
This is an extension of federal power well beyond limits envisioned even by original advocates of strong federal government. This power is often applied arbitrarily or non-uniformly simply because different US attorneys use different standards for what they will or will not prosecute. One has prosecuted and impoverished a man simply for moving sand on his own property by arguing to the court that sand was a toxic substance. Other US attorneys offices, have no interest in those prosecutions. Certainly some agencies have bad actors who set out to manufacture evidence or purjure themselves for a prosecution, but that is more a chronic problem of human nature. The problems arises when even well meaning minions of the state are invested with such wide authority that they exercise it in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and not in a manner that a government should expect to treat free men.
To note that the current scope of federal power is too great, and that some agencies exercise that power in harsh and arbitrary ways is not an argument against all government. It is an argument against a governmental nanny that a healthy political body would not entrust with that sort of authority. It is an argument for limited government.
