How Angry Are You?

Well, this has certainly been an interesting week in Washington, hasn’t it? I can’t say it’s been a good week, but no one can deny that events there have held our attention. Despite the drama associated with our pitiful excuse for an Attorney General, the most important news came from the Supreme Court.

The ruling on the Unaffordable Healthcare Act was a surprise to most, including me. I was prepared for the possibility that Justice Kennedy would side with the liberals and uphold the bill, but I was totally unprepared for Justice Roberts’ lack of sound judgment. The ruling that was handed down by this court will forever stain the reputations of the court and Justice Roberts. While I can fully appreciate the desire on the part of many to find a silver lining to this cloud, the fact remains that any silver lining comes as a result of a large, black cloud hanging over our heads.

I do agree with the Court’s determination that the individual mandate is not authorized under the commerce clause of the Constitution, but I cannot find any way to agree with them on the issue of it being a tax. To begin with it was never presented as a tax, no one involved in passing the legislation ever considered it to be a tax, and the Obama administration strenuously objected to it being called a tax. In fact, they continue to do so to this day, despite the Supreme Court’s finding.

White House spokesman Jay Carney described it as a penalty rather than a tax because you have a choice of either purchasing insurance or paying the fine. For once I agree with the White House, this is obviously not a tax. If the White House had any intellectual honesty, they would call for a full repeal of the legislation based on the fact that they view it as being unconstitutional according to this Supreme Court ruling. Honesty of any sort however, and especially of the intellectual variety, is not something with which this White House has much experience.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (for those of you in Congress who might be reading this, you can find the Constitution online HERE, please read and learn) states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If you read very carefully you will note that Congress is given the power to levy and collect taxes for only a limited number of reasons, none of which include punishing people for not engaging in congressionally mandated commerce; which by the way, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to mandate.

Okay, we’ve covered the basics here (if any of you are friends with Justice Roberts, please send him a link to this page so he has an opportunity to learn something) let’s review this decision. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not have the authority to mandate that individuals engage in commerce, but they do have the authority to levy a tax on those who fail to do so. Did Maxine Waters ghost write this opinion for Justice Roberts?

Regardless of how poorly the Supreme Court performed in this case, the lesson learned here is that, as Justice Roberts correctly noted, we cannot depend on the Supreme Court to save us from our political choices. The Supreme Court did fail to correct the wrong committed by Congress, but we cannot escape the fact that the acts of Congress are directly related to the poor choices we have made at the ballot box.

What do we do now? Are you angry about this decision? Are you angry enough to make some effort to fix what is wrong? If not, sit down and accept this mess without complaining. If you are angry enough to do something, then do.
To begin with, if you are not registered to vote, make it your business to correct that at the very first opportunity. Once you are registered to vote, find someone who isn’t (preferably not a liberal) and get them to register.

Talk to people. I know a lot of people like to avoid discussing politics, but frankly that is one of the reasons we find ourselves in this mess now. Uninformed voters and a disinterested populace are the main ingredients of a corrupt and oppressive government. Become familiar with the important issues of the day (and no, the First Lady’s latest fashion choices aren’t included on that list) and help your friends understand them. Encourage them to become informed and involved.

Pay attention to the Congressional races. The only way we can get rid of ObamaCare, and prevent more of the same, is to rid Congress of the kind of people who thought it was a good idea without even reading it. Seriously, take a look at the people we have working for us in Washington. The only job Nancy Pelosi should have at the U.S. Capitol involves the proper operation of a mop bucket. Folks, we must make better choices to represent our interests.

Get involved in the process any way you can. Write letters to the editor of your newspaper, volunteer for a campaign, work a phone bank, and write checks.

Most of all, TEACH YOUR CHILDREN! They probably won’t be interested, but teach them anyway (they’re probably not interested in learning how to mow grass either). As we have hopefully learned over the past 3-1/2 years, it is vitally important for people to follow and understand what is going on with our government if we are to preserve freedom for coming generations.

Economic Freedom

One of the most important traits of a conservative is a belief in free market capitalism that arises from a firm commitment to the protection of private property rights. In a letter to historian Samuel Kercheval, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that he believed private property rights were the basis of a free government: "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."

It is undeniable that the proper role of legitimate government is to protect the freedom its citizens to exercise their rights. That being the case, it must also be true that the only legitimate economic system supported by that government must be one that guarantees economic liberty, which can only be embodied by free market capitalism.

In an imaginary society in which everyone is free yet respectful of the rights of others, individuals govern their own actions in accordance with natural law without being forced to do so by written laws and legal enforcement. Without an established government, individuals are free to work, trade, and invest as they see fit, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the gain on their investments. Those who desire a better standard of living are free to work harder and to gain marketable skills. When people produce more than is necessary to meet their needs, they are free to trade for luxuries or to invest in enterprises which are intended to produce a profit.

In our imaginary society, it is the desire for a better standard of living that motivates people to work harder and to risk their property in hopes of growing their wealth. Left to their own devices, the majority of honest, capable citizens will labor and invest to an extent that creates a standard of living with which they are satisfied. Since people are different, the resulting standard of living will vary depending on their desires and abilities.

Our imaginary society does not exist however, which has made it necessary for our real society to form a system of government which is tasked with protecting our freedom from those who are not so honest and respectful of the rights of those around them. Since legitimate government in a free society is limited to that which is necessary to protect our freedom, its role in the economy is therefore limited to providing equal opportunity for everyone to take part in that economy.

This philosophy is reflected in what is known as the Austrian School of economics. The prevailing rival to Austrian economics is the Keynesian Theory, which calls for government manipulation of the economy using both tax policy and government deficit spending to control economic activity.

There is, of course, a great deal of debate as to which model is better but that would be a subject to deal with at another time. For the purposes of this discussion however, let’s look at the relationship between Keynesian economics and freedom.

The Keynesian model places government in a role for which it is neither intended nor well suited. When government manipulates economic activity, by definition it must exert control over the management of personal property by individuals which results in a net loss of freedom. The purpose for this manipulation is to affect a desired economic outcome, which at best results in further erosion of freedom of the individual. The methods used to effect this manipulation, tax policy and deficit spending, even further encroaches on freedom.

The only legitimate role of government is to protect freedom and that government should only collect in taxes that which is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional duties. Jefferson summed it up quite well in his first inaugural address when he said: “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to levy taxes only for the purpose of paying the debts of the government, not for the sake of manipulating the economy.

The American Revolution was fought partially in support of the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. The use of deficit spending by the government to manipulate the economy effectively taxes future generations for the sake of controlling the fortunes of the current one without their being given an opportunity to object. Our descendents are being deprived of their personal property rights well before they even have an opportunity to obtain that property.

Clearly no form of government intended to protect the freedom of its citizens should adopt policies intended to artificially control the free market. The freedom and means to create wealth are basic to our ability to live and achieve to our greatest potential. When a government commissioned by a free people exceeds its mandate and diminishes that which it is supposed to protect, it becomes an enemy of the people and forfeits its right to exist.