Yeah, sometimes the feds overreach. Does power corrupt? Of course. The NSA's unconstrained surveillance is an obvious example, as is the IRS targeting of specific groups based on their political allegiances. Those should be dealt with.
Before I get into the rest of this post, I want to note that I sometimes tire of the recent conversation being so stilted. Tea Party-esque people have taken over the dialogue. I would love to see real discussions about trade-offs in the war on drugs, on Department of Education overreach, of our goals with the EPA, of how current IP law stifles growth in the fastest growing areas of our economy, etc. Instead, we fight over whether to repave our crumbling highways or even whether we should pay our national bills. The self-righteous feel of many making the (obviously) fallacious arguments is also taxing.
The point of this post, though, is to respond to many postings I see about how the federal government is constantly overreaching and controlling every aspect of our lives. There is this notion that Uncle Sam is a more intrusive Big Brother than, say ... George Orwell's. In response to a post where I asked about federal government overreach (in an attempt to poll that was hijacked), many examples were posted on my wall. This post will have three sections: 1) List of the overreaches; 2) an explanation of the federal system and where these regs actually fall; and 3) a discussion of balancing.
Here are the putative overreaches (in the order they were posted):
At the signing, the states had general sovereignty (well, ignoring the Articles of Confederation ...). Because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, they could restrict virtually anything: speech, religion, what you do with your doctor or in your bedroom, what you purchased, etc. With only a few exceptions (right to know why you were arrested, no after-the-fact laws, some ability to travel, some elusive contract something, etc.), this sovereignty remained until the Civil War. For instance, there were state religions. Because of slavery and the federal government's response to it, 3 amendments were passed, including the 14th. The 14th Amendment lets Congress make the states do things having to do with life, liberty, property, equality, and due process -- it's pretty expansive (and, from legislative history, it was known at the time it was expansive). In the 20th century, SCOTUS began applying the Bill of Rights to the states.
As it happens, right wing stridency notwithstanding, the VAST majority of laws that affect you everyday are local in nature, meaning at the municipality or state level.
I'll break up the list of "federal" overreaches to show you (some landed in multiple categories):
Subdivision:
Of course, there IS a way to change it. Persuasion. Get together with some people in your subdivision, by out the detractors, and make it where you can do whatever you want with your property. Of course, the property values will plummet because people will do stupid things, and that's why they made the contract (bill of assurance) in the first place ... but you can do it. Or go make your own subdivision and put in whatever silly restrictions you want (like "no restrictions besides this one" ... which is a restriction, by the way).
True, every state in the union makes it a crime to booby trap your property, especially in lethal ways -- the use of lethal force should come with some measure of discretion. The majority of the other laws are the same.
Now, for the federal laws, I'll make a quick sweep through them:
The one other area that I think you might be on to something is the business startup. Most business regs don't apply to small businesses, but a few do, and there is certainly a lot of uncertainty about what does and doesn't apply, so I think a combined effort by the feds and state SBAs to streamline the process, with helpful FAQs and lots of ready-to-go documentation that helps reduce uncertainty and liability, would be awesome.
And, to conclude, my thoughts are that we make trade offs. I want higher property values so I live in a city that highly regulates what can be done on the property. I want firework restrictions because I don't want random explosions all the time. I want the feds to keep the states from going crazy, and I want the branches of the federal government to keep each other in line.
My freedom is not only restricted by the federal government. Other governments restrict it more often and more onerously. More importantly, lots of other groups try to restrict my freedom. Businesses try to develop monopolies or skew markets. Churches try to tell me what to do with every aspect of my life. Other groups try to have their own way. Governments try to set up an even playing field, and when they mess that up, we need to fix it, not blame them for doing what we created them to do.
If you don't like that, start your own, or find one somewhere in the world that agrees with you ... or convince people here in the states. Acting like everyone else is simply wrong, though, for imagining that not all badness lies in the government, and that the government has legitimate interests in creating boundaries and rules, flies in the face of history, experience, and the way governments exist at every level throughout the world.
Thoughts?
Before I get into the rest of this post, I want to note that I sometimes tire of the recent conversation being so stilted. Tea Party-esque people have taken over the dialogue. I would love to see real discussions about trade-offs in the war on drugs, on Department of Education overreach, of our goals with the EPA, of how current IP law stifles growth in the fastest growing areas of our economy, etc. Instead, we fight over whether to repave our crumbling highways or even whether we should pay our national bills. The self-righteous feel of many making the (obviously) fallacious arguments is also taxing.
The point of this post, though, is to respond to many postings I see about how the federal government is constantly overreaching and controlling every aspect of our lives. There is this notion that Uncle Sam is a more intrusive Big Brother than, say ... George Orwell's. In response to a post where I asked about federal government overreach (in an attempt to poll that was hijacked), many examples were posted on my wall. This post will have three sections: 1) List of the overreaches; 2) an explanation of the federal system and where these regs actually fall; and 3) a discussion of balancing.
Here are the putative overreaches (in the order they were posted):
- Transferring prescription meds between people
- Regulatory hurdles to becoming a school teacher
- Lack of the ability to buy incandescent light bulbs
- Can't carry a gun all the time
- Property (can't keep farm animals or do other unlisted things)
- Different type of house (including shower head and toilet)
- Less money for a car because of government regs
- Inability to shoot deer on your property
- Jury summons is akin to kidnapping
- So is the draft (signing up for Selective Service)
- Property taxes are ridiculous
- Dishwasher and washer are not as good as they could be
- Motorcycle laws that restrict age and require helmets
- Firework restrictions
- Donut shop mural (Louisiana guy painted a mural of a donut on his shop and was fined for breaking an advertising ban)
- Seatbelt laws that mean my kid can't lie down in the back when sick
- Schooling laws
- Business startup is more expensive (with a pseudo-ADA suggestion about ramps)
- Use of cash for purchasing used/secondhand goods
- Illegality of poker
- Health insurance mandate of ACA
- Fully automatic rifle is too expensive
- Booby traps on property
- Organ selling
- Carrying a gun on campus
At the signing, the states had general sovereignty (well, ignoring the Articles of Confederation ...). Because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, they could restrict virtually anything: speech, religion, what you do with your doctor or in your bedroom, what you purchased, etc. With only a few exceptions (right to know why you were arrested, no after-the-fact laws, some ability to travel, some elusive contract something, etc.), this sovereignty remained until the Civil War. For instance, there were state religions. Because of slavery and the federal government's response to it, 3 amendments were passed, including the 14th. The 14th Amendment lets Congress make the states do things having to do with life, liberty, property, equality, and due process -- it's pretty expansive (and, from legislative history, it was known at the time it was expansive). In the 20th century, SCOTUS began applying the Bill of Rights to the states.
As it happens, right wing stridency notwithstanding, the VAST majority of laws that affect you everyday are local in nature, meaning at the municipality or state level.
I'll break up the list of "federal" overreaches to show you (some landed in multiple categories):
Subdivision:
- Property (can't keep farm animals or do other unlisted things)
- Different type of house (including shower head and toilet)
- Inability to shoot deer on your property
- Property taxes are ridiculous
- Can't carry a gun all the time
- Property (can't keep farm animals or do other unlisted things)
- Different type of house (including shower head and toilet)
- Inability to shoot deer on your property
- Property taxes are ridiculous
- Firework restrictions
- Donut shop mural (Louisiana guy painted a mural of a donut on his shop and was fined for breaking an advertising ban)
- Illegality of poker
- Regulatory hurdles to becoming a school teacher
- Can't carry a gun all the time
- Different type of house (including shower head and toilet)
- Less money for a car because of government regs
- Inability to shoot deer on your property
- Jury summons is akin to kidnapping
- Property taxes are ridiculous
- Motorcycle laws that restrict age and require helmets
- Firework restrictions
- Seatbelt laws that mean my kid can't lie down in the back when sick
- Schooling laws
- Business startup is more expensive (with a pseudo-ADA suggestion about ramps)
- Use of cash for purchasing used/secondhand goods
- Illegality of poker
- Booby traps on property
- Organ selling
- Carrying a gun on campus
- Transferring prescription meds between people
- Lack of the ability to buy incandescent light bulbs
- Less money for a car because of government regs
- So is the draft (signing up for Selective Service)
- Health insurance mandate of ACA
- Fully automatic rifle is too expensive
- Organ selling
- Carrying a gun on campus
- ? Dishwasher and washer are not as good as they could be
- ~ Motorcycle laws that restrict age and require helmets
- ~ Seatbelt laws that mean my kid can't lie down in the back when sick
- ~ Schooling laws
- ~ Business startup is more expensive (with a pseudo-ADA suggestion about ramps)
- Organ selling
Of course, there IS a way to change it. Persuasion. Get together with some people in your subdivision, by out the detractors, and make it where you can do whatever you want with your property. Of course, the property values will plummet because people will do stupid things, and that's why they made the contract (bill of assurance) in the first place ... but you can do it. Or go make your own subdivision and put in whatever silly restrictions you want (like "no restrictions besides this one" ... which is a restriction, by the way).
True, every state in the union makes it a crime to booby trap your property, especially in lethal ways -- the use of lethal force should come with some measure of discretion. The majority of the other laws are the same.
Now, for the federal laws, I'll make a quick sweep through them:
- Transferring meds -- yeah, let's get rid of that one. End the war on drugs.
- Incandescent light bulbs -- it's an environmental thing to push for better energy efficiency and fewer by-products. We'll live.
- Less money for a car -- ... but a better car that doesn't pollute as much and that allows you and others you might strike to have a better chance at living. Maybe some of the regs could be tweaked, but people generally like knowing the mileage, safety measures, etc., are within reasonable bounds.
- Draft amounting to kidnapping -- Sort of. It's always been a part of sovereignty, and I would be shocked if there were a country that didn't assert the right. Also, the draft hasn't been applicable to most of the people reading this.
- Health insurance -- Your right to stupidly not carry health insurance does not trump my right to try to create a national market that ignores pre-existing conditions. I don't want to pay for your ER visit, and yet I don't want you to die, so ... you need to purchase insurance and stop freeloading.
- Fully automatic rifle -- I feel less safe when lots of people have fully automatic rifles. Your right to self defense stops at some point when it makes the rest of us less safe (you can't have your own nuke, for instance) ... and we have decided, as a culture, that the line is somewhere in the assault rifle spectrum.
- Organ selling -- First, you don't own you because people can't be owned. The idea that people are commodities is what leads to slavery and genocide. That said, I think that a market in organ selling is worth considering. The only country in the world that currently allows it is Iran, but it might make sense to investigate it. There are large problems, but they might be offset. We'll have to change some treaties first, though, I think.
- Carrying on gun on campus -- Those laws were passed because of kids dying, and the laws worked (look at the stats from the 90s). Your right to carry doesn't trump my kids' rights to not have guns in their classrooms.
The rest are questionable or only partially to do with the government. Product laws are generally state-based (and often really California-based), but the EPA may have some regs that touch on water efficiency. There may be some regs that tie highway funds to age/helmet restrictions (but, if so, Arkansas ignores many of them). You are making a bad decision for your child when you let them lie down in the back because they feel bad, and I'm fine with you not being able to endanger them. Similarly, you may screw up their education, and we require citizens to be educated, so you have to prove you are providing some minimal level of education (and the home-schooling laws are at most slightly onerous).
And, to conclude, my thoughts are that we make trade offs. I want higher property values so I live in a city that highly regulates what can be done on the property. I want firework restrictions because I don't want random explosions all the time. I want the feds to keep the states from going crazy, and I want the branches of the federal government to keep each other in line.
My freedom is not only restricted by the federal government. Other governments restrict it more often and more onerously. More importantly, lots of other groups try to restrict my freedom. Businesses try to develop monopolies or skew markets. Churches try to tell me what to do with every aspect of my life. Other groups try to have their own way. Governments try to set up an even playing field, and when they mess that up, we need to fix it, not blame them for doing what we created them to do.
If you don't like that, start your own, or find one somewhere in the world that agrees with you ... or convince people here in the states. Acting like everyone else is simply wrong, though, for imagining that not all badness lies in the government, and that the government has legitimate interests in creating boundaries and rules, flies in the face of history, experience, and the way governments exist at every level throughout the world.
Thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment