From: Jim Burnes <jvb@ssds.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:01:18 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981111192646.408E-100000@jb3.fastrans.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




** 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>