It's impossible to see the light with your head up your butt!

          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.