Imagine There Was No Government (Apologies to John Lennon)

Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

Article 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Government in the U.S. was to limit their powers to the consent of the governed. Limited government must be enforced if we are to maintain individual liberty.

As Jefferson warned many times in his writings limited FEDERAL government is essential for the protection of a persons limited liberties.

George Washington warned in his farewell address, that “usurpation is the customary means by which free governments are destroyed.

To answer your direct questions;

“Who would:
* take care of those born with profound physical or mental challenges
* care for the aged
* care for those involved in catastrophic accidents
* those maimed by war or crime”

For most of our nation’s history, charity was taken care of by local organizations — churches, fraternal organizations and to a limited extent city and county governments. Moreover, most professionals had a highly developed sense of charity, which meant lawyers would do pro bono work, hospitals would take a few charity cases, doctors would work in free clinics, and so on. It was only with the implementation of the Great Society fifty years ago that we began to see government, and particularly the Federal government as the answer to these issues.

“Would we:
* have police and fire fighters
* trash collection and snow removal
* public hospitals for the very poor

What happens with:
* roads and bridges
* schools and libraries”

Of course we would have all of these. Those issues, however, would be dealt with at the local level. This is a bit of a strawman in a discussion about Federal power.

[As an aside, the school system was largely run by the local towns until the 1930s. We seemed to get along fairly well]

My personal belief is that government should abide by two overarching principles;

1. Governmental decisions should be made as close to the local level as possible. The Feds shouldn’t regulate something the individual States can handle, the States should pass as many things as possible to the counties and so on.

2. The main role of government is to ensure that citizens have the knowledge, and the skills to use that knowledge, needed to make their own decisions. Government does not need to make decisions for us — just give us the opportunity to make good decisions ourselves. Moreover, when we make bad decisions, government should largely allow us to suffer the consequences of those decisions.

If we could get our government to do these two things consistently, we would be in much better shape than we are now.

Ken — you seem like a nice enough guy. Your heart’s in the right place. I suspect that you and I could have some long, fun civil conversations about real estate, the nation, and the like in person.

But seriously, do yourself a favor and stop writing this “column” on politics and real estate. It’s embarrassing, and does discredit to your side of the political divide. If you are going to continue, you owe it to yourself and to the readers to educate yourself some on government and politics.

The Civil War settled the question of the role of the Federal Government? Really? Did we repeal the 10th Amendment when I wasn’t looking?

You support the Constitution, but the times have outgrown it? Good — then presumably, you support this section as well:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Amend the Constitution if you think it’s outdated; don’t push policies down the throats of the American people via the courts and unconstitutional legislation spawned out of your bleeding heart. The road to perdition is paved with such intentions.

Your list of questions itself displays profound ignorance about the power of government. What makes government different from every other organization or institution is its monopoly on violence. In civil society, only the government may legitimately use force.

So ask yourself this: which policies require the use of force to implement?

National defense does. Justice system does. Very few other things do.

Taking care of the disadvantaged requires the use of force? Public hospitals requires the use of force? Caring for people in accidents requires use of force? No wonder most sane Americans look at that and think, hey, you guys are actually socialists just paying lip service to the Constitution.

Roads and bridges? Schools and libraries? Seriously? Did the United States not have these things before the almighty, all-seeing, all-wise Federal Government came into being? You might want to go re-read (or read for the first time) Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. It might surprise you to learn that somehow, our forefathers managed to take care of the poor, educate their children, and have roads without Washington or Sacramento or Albany telling them to do it, how to do it, or funding them to do it.

Finally, if you’re going to make economic arguments about politics, you’re going to need some new facts. Are you defending the minimum wage? For real?

Start here: https://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472 —

The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from “taking jobs” from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from “exploitation” but to protect white workers from competition.

In addition:

The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive — thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.

I thought you progressives cared about racial equality and helping the disadvantaged. You should be arguing vigorously against the minimum wage, or rent control laws, or zoning regulations — all of which protect the entrenched powers from competition.

And that’s just ONE example.

Oh, I know, we heartless conservatives and libertarians, who don’t care about the poor and the unfortunate, and all that. Repeat a lie enough and it takes on the veneer of truth. Fact is, progressive/liberal policies might all start with a twinge in the heart for some unfortunate situation, but when one looks at the actual impact of those policies, we find poverty, destruction of the family, and dependence on government handouts.

But then, that might be the real point: make a free people dependent on the government. Well, thanks and all, but I’ll pass, and most Americans would too as evidenced by the Tea Party movement. Oops! I forgot, the Tea Partiers are just a fringe violent white supremacist theocrat movement — by all means, keep on thinking that and ignoring us, at least through 2010 and 2012.

As entertaining as talking about real estate and politics is, I think this is my last comment on these generalized topics. AG could and should be discussing rather more specific real-estate related issues: home buyer tax credits, mortgage deductions, regulation of the mortgage industry, state licensing schemes, and so on. These general meditations on politics can — and should — be had at any number of politics-focused sites.

-rsh

One other thing….let’s get rid of HUD and the SEC and put back 200% no-docs with a 420 score and no appraisals too!

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything.

We don’t need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes.

Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries.

Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense.

No one is required to read these Sunday morning political posts. 🙂

I appreciate Benn and Lani for opening it up and allowing some of us to debate, disagree or agree.

Even though Ken and I are miles apart politically, I have a new appreciation for him and his views. Regardless how we much we disagree.

Robb, beautifully said.

>In short, what does a society look like when all the Government does is maintain a standing army to defend itself against direct attack?

Heaven.