FDR and the New Deal

[Augustine2004]

History pop quiz! True or false, Army Wesley?

Alexander Hamilton claimed in the Federalist Papers that the SCOTUS would be the least dangerous branch of the USFG.

On the other hand,

Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution [the AntiFederalist Papers]. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.

Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles11.1.html

[bridgeforsale]

History pop quiz! True or false, Army Wesley?

Alexander Hamilton claimed in the Federalist Papers that the SCOTUS would be the least dangerous branch of the USFG.

On the other hand,

Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution [the AntiFederalist Papers]. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.

Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles11.1.html

I don't disagree that the Supreme Court has overstepped in the past. That said .... I also think judicial tyranny is overly-harsh terminology and an inaccurate depiction of reality (not to mention unnecessarily inflammatory). We can always amend the constitution (or our President can always pack the court). There's ways to dilute the power of the judiciary (the fact that hasn't happened is telling).

[bridgeforsale]

Are you accusing Austrian-school people like Tom Woods and Murray Rothbard of making up history? A Tweb rule requires you to back up your accusation of lying.

I'll tell you what ... why don't I just go ahead and say what parts of the government I would cut, and you can tell me why it either goes too far or not far enough (so perhaps we can move this discussion out of the black hole of theoretical platitudes into a more tangible discourse):

1) Education Dept.
2) Health & Human Services (and all the health care & welfare programs ran by this agency)
3) DEA and ATF
4) HUD
5) Privatize medicare and social security

I view all these functions as state or private functions (under our constitution the states may take over these functions if they desire, and obviously if their electorate wants state intervention in these areas it will probably happen).

There's a few I'm sure I neglected to mention, but you get the point. The agencies I would keep is DOD (and all subordinate departments i.e. our four military branches), FBI (we do need some amount of law enforcement for interstate crime), CIA (we need intelligence because not having good or at least decent intel is virtually suicidal not to mention idiotic), I would also include the Treasury Dept (it's enumerated in the constitution so it's a required branch), the judiciary (it's also required by the Constitution), the Justice Department, and regulatory agencies like the EPA, SEC, FDA, etc. (although in this latter area I'm more flexible).

Now, tell me why I'm wrong (and please speak plainly and elude to real world examples when possible)?

[Augustine2004]

Arminius Wes,

Sigh. Public goods, remember? You did demur, but you never explained why in specific terms.

[bridgeforsale]

Arminius Wes,

Sigh. Public goods, remember? You did demur, but you never explained why in specific terms.

I didn't delay .... I gave a specific laundry list of programs I endorse eliminating. If you like these programs ... please tell me why you believe the federal government can do a better job than the states or the people?

[Augustine2004]

I didn't delay .... I gave a specific laundry list of programs I endorse eliminating. If you like these programs ... please tell me why you believe the federal government can do a better job than the states or the people?

You seem to have forgotten already that I want total elimination of the USFG. My position is that we should trust the free market (I mean free from government manipulation and leeching, though I'm willing to discuss a degree of non-governmental evildoing) to provide what we want.

[bridgeforsale]

You seem to have forgotten already that I want total elimination of the USFG. My position is that we should trust the free market (I mean free from government manipulation and leeching, though I'm willing to discuss a degree of non-governmental evildoing) to provide what we want.

OK ... not all that unreasonable (although probably impractical in today's political climate).

Government intervention is always a tempting solution to difficult problems. Take for instance health care. The Presidents idea is if we can infuse some degree of lower priced competition into the system (visa vi a government insurance alternative) it will lower costs. However, we know this isn't true .... just look at how much success state run universities have had in reducing college costs (none).

Of course the complexities of the problem can't be understated. Roughly 70% of our health care costs are spent on chronic illnesses, mostly heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer (with heart disease and cancer costing the most). An interesting factoid is Thailand has only one quarter the rate of cancer we do. Obviously they ingest a radically different diet (evidenced by the fact we now have about twice the level of obesity as we did in 1987). Even the government isn't stupid enough to think they can influence our diet .... therefore they're bent on a half cocked endeavor to lower health care costs through government intervention (i.e. quasi-socialized medicine). The problem is our health care costs are among the worlds highest (if not the worlds highest). Part of the problem is the high level of care we provide comes at a high cost.

How do we reduce the burden on our industry (and of course health care costs represent a huge problem for business in this country). I know socializing part of the system isn't the answer ..... but I also admit a good solution eludes me right now?

[bridgeforsale]

BTW, as you know, I also could not support privatizing our military. Even if there are economic models that show it could be more cost effective .... it wouldn't matter. I like our military the way it is (and I'm not inclined to support rolling the dice with our national defense).

In most other areas I probably agree with you (to a large degree anyway).

[bartdanr]

Hi SeanD,

I'm anything but an economist expert, but from what I understand by the economists, it was a major world war that got the US out of a economic catastrophe.

I've never understood this argument. Consider this thought experiment, if you accept the premise that WW II somehow "helped" our economy: [EDIT: This thought experiment stolen from "The Road to Serfdom"--and the author stole it from someone else, but I don't remember who.]

Have the US and Japan declare mutual war in order to help both economies. Both nations will build huge naval fleets that will meet in a predetermined spot in the Pacific ocean. Since we don't want all that messy bloodshed that "real" war entails, the ships are abandoned. Then we sink both fleets, and congratulate each other for "saving" our national economies.

Does anyone seriously believe this? It's like when a hurricane wipes out a town: in the aftermath, people see all of the reconstruction and how this "helps" the local economy. What they fail to see is how the hurricane merely diverted funds to other, more productive uses. Otherwise, the most sensible thing to help the economy would be to burn down every major city periodically.

My town was recently hit by a hail storm. I got a check for about $8,000 to rebuild my roof, and I'll be getting more checks to fix my vehicles. Was the hail storm a good thing? Maybe my roof contractor thinks it's a good thing--he's got a lot of work now. But it merely diverted the Insurance Company's funds from, say, investing in stocks, bonds (or gold for that matter), and forced them to pay it out because something was destroyed that was perfectly good before.

In short, the assertion that destruction of property (or life for that matter) is an economic good is beyond silly. Sean, don't let any economist try to tell you otherwise.

[Augustine2004]

How do we reduce the burden on our industry (and of course health care costs represent a huge problem for business in this country). I know socializing part of the system isn't the answer ..... but I also admit a good solution eludes me right now?

I'm not sure, but I think you are talking about the lack of political support for the free market. The only way open for libertarians is to re-educate the people. Very slow, and may prove unproductive in the long run, but again it's the only way.

[Augustine2004]

BTW, as you know, I also could not support privatizing our military. Even if there are economic models that show it could be more cost effective .... it wouldn't matter. I like our military the way it is (and I'm not inclined to support rolling the dice with our national defense).

In most other areas I probably agree with you (to a large degree anyway).

'Rolling the dice!' Clearly you still don't understand that national defense is NOT an exception to the principle of 'let the free market serve us!' Please, don't just disagree, SHOW what's wrong with the argument for it. Perhaps you could try to show in detail that national defense is indeed an exception.

[bartdanr]

Hi Augustine,

'Rolling the dice!' Clearly you still don't understand that national defense is NOT an exception to the principle of 'let the free market serve us!' Please, don't just disagree, SHOW what's wrong with the argument for it. Perhaps you could try to show in detail that national defense is indeed an exception.

Indeed. People tend to forget that with the [great] exception of the Civil War, the US had a tiny federal military--until WW I (and indeed afterwards, until we decided that we "had" to rearm to support one set of tyrants against another), and since the War of 1812 not a single nation has tried to invade us. (Ok, the Japanese occupied a few Aleutian islands in WW II, though this was technically a US territory, not a state.)

I'd also like to know what kind of a "military" do most supposed "neutral" conservatives support--what is necessary to defend the USA? And what "interests" should be "defended" abroad through military forces? Do we really need B-2 Bombers and supercarriers to defend the USA? Or are they rather necessary to support our post-WW II visions of Empire? (And--though it isn't currently used this way--as an overwhellming threat of force that can be turned against a disarmed citizenry?)

[Augustine2004]

Indeed. People tend to forget that with the [great] exception of the Civil War, the US had a tiny federal military--until WW I (and indeed afterwards, until we decided that we "had" to rearm to support one set of tyrants against another), and since the War of 1812 not a single nation has tried to invade us. (Ok, the Japanese occupied a few Aleutian islands in WW II, though this was technically a US territory, not a state.)

Hello!

Correct, but that doesn't show what the world would be, had the US let the free market provide national defense instead. History can be used to support and illuminate your arguments, but it must still be interpreted with a good theoretical framework–click here and do a search for ‘history’:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=557


Perhaps you will be interested in these threads:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=108296
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=107328

I'd also like to know what kind of a "military" do most supposed "neutral" conservatives support--what is necessary to defend the USA? And what "interests" should be "defended" abroad through military forces? Do we really need B-2 Bombers and supercarriers to defend the USA? Or are they rather necessary to support our post-WW II visions of Empire? (And--though it isn't currently used this way--as an overwhellming threat of force that can be turned against a disarmed citizenry?)

A free-market military would be far more defense minded than our current bloody military. Down with Betrayus.

[bridgeforsale]

'Rolling the dice!' Clearly you still don't understand that national defense is NOT an exception to the principle of 'let the free market serve us!' Please, don't just disagree, SHOW what's wrong with the argument for it. Perhaps you could try to show in detail that national defense is indeed an exception.

I agree with your above statement (a sustained effort to educate the American people in libertarian political and economic theory is necessary). As far as privatizing our military .... as I said before I don't care about economic benefit when it comes to our military (so why would I try and prove a point that first off probably can't be proven either way, and second asks me to prove a point that doesn't form the basis of my reasoning?).

I'm very simplistic when it comes to our national defense. It is a public function (frankly I wouldn't care if Adam Smith himself rose from the grave and said we should privatize it ) And when I hear down with Betrayus ..... may that makes sick and ticked off. The man is a great American hero, besmirched by pin heads (who have no life and probably never will). Do you have any real sense of loyalty to this country?

[Augustine2004]

A.W., you're one who said FDR was a great Prez. Oh, maybe you meant great in the sense Hitler was great? I guess not, though.

What is actually happening in the Mideast is virtually a defeat. It's being covered up--quite successfully to judge from what most people appear to think.

See, what have we accomplished? The Iraqi are taking over, true, but violence continues, yes?

We're pretending we're winning, when we actually are sustaining defeat. Betrayus is part of the deception. He's a traitor to the American people. I'm a traitor to the gunvernment--NOT to the people.

Whatever do you mean by 'economic benefit'? The military-industrial-gunvernment complex is making like robber barons, but I guess that's not what you mean. The people are suffering relative poverty. I mean, things could be much better for us than now.

You're being silly or stupid. Every action is economic in nature (I should have said praxeological, but never mind).