A dear friend
of mine has, in the past, trumpeted the belief that Ron Paul and his ilk are
the solution to all problems related to Government, and that the Great Satan is
"too much Government regulation." This Libertarian approach sounds good, much like
anything with the word "chocolate" in it. It is worthy of note that
Ex-Lax starts with "Chocolate Flavored;" I'm just saying. Of course, by
his own words in a newsletter he now disavows, Mr. Paul's desire for
personal liberty includes the right to discriminate based on color. One of Mr.
Paul's principal rallying cries is for a return to the Gold standard. It
distresses me that really bright, advanced degree holders who have to have had
macro-economics at some point don't rise up with one voice and scream
"bullshit" whenever he speaks of this. Even rational Libertarians
scoff at the idea.
Problems with the gold standard: according to most real economists, a reversion to the gold standard would be an
unfortunate step backwards to 19th century mercantilism, and—worse—a
relinquishment of sovereignty over the US dollar to foreign interests. This a prime example of where to draw the
line on trusting laissez-faire to work its magic. Adam Smith be damned, it
would mean trusting the worldwide
producers in the gold market—chief among which are Russia and South Africa, to act only on the basis of their unfettered
economic self-interest when it comes to supplying the USA with the gold it would
need to support its growing economy. I
strongly suspect that international politics, subterfuge, and blackmail would
become key risk factors to a gold-backed US dollar. In short, when it comes to guardianship of
the US dollar’s value, foreign gold mine
owners are far, far less trustworthy than
US citizens appointed by the US
government—a.k.a. the Fed Board of Governors.
We have infinitely more control over the Fed than we have over the
foreign interests in control of most of the world's the gold supply.
Another of
the rallying cries of the Paulists are the insistence that they, and only they,
have the insight and intelligence to
understand the intent of the Framers regarding the scope of the Commerce Clause.
The implication is, of course, that
modernists and the "accursed liberals" have perverted that very limited (their words) meaning in the 20th century. In 1803
Chief Justice John Marshall, certainly worthy to be considered a
"Framer" specifically rejected the idea that Congress is limited to
powers expressly bestowed by the Constitution and said that the legislature has
implied powers—like incorporating a bank—that are derived from its “great
powers,” including the power to regulate commerce. Among other pronouncements, Marshall
said: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of
the constitution, are constitutional.” Five years later, he again took an
expansive view of the Commerce Clause, this time in Gibbons v. Ogden. Commerce is more than just the traffic of
goods—commodities exchanging hands—Marshall said. It must be read to include
elements such as navigation, in this case, transportation of goods by
steamboat. Congress’s power persists even when such navigation occurs within
the borders of a particular state, Marshall said, “so far as that navigation
may be, in any manner, connected with `commerce … among the several states.’ ” Writing
for a 6-0 majority in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), John Marshall wrote the
following about the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution: "What
is this power?" "It is the
power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be
governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in
itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations
other than are prescribed in the Constitution."
Why dig so
deeply into the past? Because for 34 years beginning in 1801, the principle of federal
implied powers was fostered by numerous USSC decisions, in fact, not until 1890
was such a decision from a lower court overturned. The recent decision upholding
the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPAHCA) makes the argument
that health care, including how it is paid for (which includes insurance) constitutes
“Commerce…among the several
States.” As such, I can see no argument
that the Congress does not have the power to, using Marshall’s words,
“prescribe the rule by which commerce is the be governed” in this
situation. This is the same basic
reasoning that lead former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fired to likewise
conclude the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
Marshall, by
the way, rightly falls in the “Founders” category. That fact does not of itself, make him
correct, but it does blunt the notion that an expansive interpretation of the
Commerce Clause is a some newfangled thing invented by modern liberals.
While we're
lamenting the evils of Government regulation let's talk Polio. Polio is alive
and well in some places in the world, yet has been unknown in the US since the
1960s when Government sponsored immunization programs were started. Would Libertarians
scoff at the kind of Government force behind the effort? Other types of
immunizations are under fire from the lunatic fringe, convinced, in spite of
zero scientific proof, that mandatory vaccination programs are evil because
they cause Autism. The result, from those parents who either lie, or simply
refuse vaccination is an increase in measles and chicken pox neither of which
any child in America should suffer. While we're at it let's look at the FDA, a
"spin off" of the Commerce clause. It isn't their fault that so many "pseudo-drugs" escape trials and are
available otc, to the detriment of some, but it is to their eternal credit that
Thalidomide, a drug banned by one of those pesky regulators, over strenuous demands from
an American drug company (you know, the same guys that spent millions
(literally) to lobby against the PPAHCA) was held from expectant mothers in
America, while over 10,000 tragically deformed babies were born in Europe and Canada.
Damn those regulators!
Everyone who
owes their life to a seat belt, also owes it in part to federal regulators who
saw the potential for life saving that they represent, and required they be
part of original equipment in US autos. We are appalled when an e-coli outbreak
causes tainted meat to make a group of individuals ill. We are appalled
primarily because it's so rare. The same is true for restaurants. Both the meat
industry and restaurants are subject to various regulations, State and Federal,
aimed at consumer protection. Most
federal regulations that are consumer safety oriented are responses to
indentified problems which could only be ameliorated by regulation. One only
has to look at Britain in mid 1800s (and some American cities 50 years later)
to see the effects of unrestricted laissez faire in the workplace. In the UK
change was a result of increasing fear of what might happen without it. In
America much late 19th and early 20th century change was spurred by three
Presidents, one Democrat (Wilson) and two Republicans (Roosevelt and Taft) who
were willing to swim against the tide of the Morgans, Rockefellers et al in the
interest of doing the right thing.
And now to
summarize. It is foolhardy and naive bordering on terminally stupid to believe
that most businesses and industries have
or have ever had the public's interest at heart. The standard MBA program mantra
is "The number one job of a corporation is to maximize shareholder
profits" Hell, they even have to
have classes in ethics! Newsworthy occurrences in the financial product, banking,
and credit card sectors make it abundantly clear that your money is only as safe as these
institutions are forced to keep it - by federal regulators. The same is true of
our waterways. The same is true of your car and the airplane you fly in.
Those who wish to live a libertarian lifestyle
should go to China first and visit Guiyu,
the town where other industrialized nations send their electronics to be dismantled.
An entire generation of kids there have blood levels of lead and cadmium which
presage early and pernicious chronic diseases in adulthood. What is so ridiculous
is that, like the PPAHCA , most of those who scream loudest are essentially
unaffected by most government regulations. It's rather like me living in Central
Florida and whining about California taxes or complaining about the massive import
duty on Maseratis.
