Scope of Government.

Vic Biorseth, Wednesday, May 26, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Our Constitution is a quite short, succinct and easy-to-read document, as you can see in the American Constitution page. That one, brief document, along with its Bill of Rights, is the blueprint for the setup, organization, running and operating rules for the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, in all of world history. As a legal document, there is nothing complicated about it; indeed, it is very simple. If you are reading and understanding these words, then none of it is beyond your ability to read and comprehend.

Article I lays out for us the Legislative Process, describing our two Houses of Congress, their makeup, their members, their rules of election, service and operation, and their powers. Section 8 tells us what they are to do – a description of their official responsibilities.

Article II lays out for us the Executive Process, describing our President and Vice President, their offices, their rules of election, service an operation, and their powers. Sections 2 and 3 tell us what they are to do – a description of their official responsibilities.

Article III lays out for us the Judicial Process, describing our Supreme Court and inferior courts, their jurisdiction and their responsibilities.

The Bill of Rights establishes limitations on government protecting certain American citizen rights, which are not granted by government, but by God, as described in the American founding document, the Declaration of Independence. Most specifically, these rights involve freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition of government and gun ownership. These are rights we already had and they were not granted by government; rather, government is prohibited from interfering with them or hindering them.

Note that there is nothing in the Constitution regarding any increase in government control in any area, or of limiting citizen liberty, or of collectivization or redistribution of anything. Those things were born in another document titled The Communist Manifesto and they are directly opposed to the makeup, organization and operating rules of the United States of America.

Nor is there anything about government attacking such problems as illiteracy, childhood obesity, healthy eating habits, smoking, producing carbon, etc. Nor is there anything about government requiring private enterprises to produce products such as cars with special airbags, or built-in “crushability”, or any particular fuel-mileage requirements, etc.

Today we have not only high ranking bureaucrats, but our President, instructing us on the proper way to cough or sneeze, while pushing another false “emergency” regarding a completely bogus influenza “pandemic”. You could be written up for sneezing into your cupped hand instead of your sleeve, if you are seen doing it. This stuff happens at state and local levels, too. In some places, government requires the local mom and pop diner to put the calories-per-serving beside all the specials listed on the black board, or on all menus, if they have printed menus. There is no end to it.

None of this is the proper business of government.

We have no need for any Surgeon General of the United States, or of any bureaucracy beneath that title or function. Medicine is not the business of government. If it isn’t in the Constitution, what is its justification for existence? Pork? Political payoff? Reward for services rendered? Opportunity to grow the government and increase government reach?

Our government has no business “donating” our money to support such abominations as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA.) If art is worth a dollar, someone will pay that dollar, as fair market value. If art – or blasphemy – is not worth a dollar, why should the tax payers be forced to pay that dollar? Art can stand on its own whenever and wherever there is a market for it. If an artist cannot sell a Madonna with feces on it, or a crucifix in a jar of urine, then he richly deserves the title Starving Artist. If he cannot sell his work in the free and open marketplace, the tax payers should not be his safety net. There is nothing special about art. Lots of real artists are quite rich. Fakes are not worthy to be recipients of any involuntary redistribution of other people’s money.

The wonderful thing about America, as founded, is the existence of a strictly private sphere of activity beyond the reach of government. We call it opportunity. So long as we do not defraud or cheat, we are free to act in this sphere completely free from any control or any interference from government. This stems from the natural right to private property. This basic, fundamental human right is implicit within the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal” and it guarantees the right of an individual to ownership of something. If he owns it, he has certain rights over it, and no one can take it away or damage it.

Walter Williams, the professor/economist/philosopher of note, has pointed out that some or most of these intrusions into this private sphere of citizen activity as violations of the human right to private property. He illustrated the point by talking about smokers and smoking. My body is my property; so is my health. If I choose to smoke, that is my choice, and no one else’s choice.

The notion that smokers hurt health insurance costs for everyone is bogus. Insurance companies have no problem denying claims for high risk customers. If you die sky diving, of scuba diving, or hang-gliding, guess what – your life insurance is going to deny your claim. It would be just as easy for a health insurance company to deny a lung cancer claim of a smoker. Similarly, it would be just as easy for a car insurance company to deny a claim of someone who did not use a seat belt and was thrown from a car and injured or killed.

At a higher level, my house is my property. If I want to allow smoking in my house, that is not the business of government. If I own a restaurant, and I want to allow smoking in my restaurant, that is not the business of government. If I own a business, and I want to allow my workers and customers to smoke, that is not the business of government. The private sphere of private citizen activity free from government control or interference is shrinking down to nothing.

Now, I am not a smoker, at least not for the last 35 years or so, and I have now hit the point where cigarette smoke bothers me. However, Walter Williams is quite correct. It is astounding how American smokers seem to be just rolling over with every new wave of restrictions on where and when they can smoke, and on ridiculously higher and higher taxes imposed on cigarettes in hopes of driving usage down, but in the real world, feeding cross-county and cross-state black markets in cigarettes.

A thing such as tobacco, or liquor, or drugs, should either be legal, or illegal. If a substance or product is legal, then there should be no restrictions on it and no special usage or punitive taxes associated with it. The only restrictions on alcohol and tobacco that I am aware of involve age of majority. I wonder why we even have a police agency titled ATF, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Alcohol is legal, tobacco is legal and firearms are legal. So why does the ATF exist? To check IDs at the retail counter?

We need to get government back to doing what it is Constituted to do. If they would pay more attention to the budget, that would be nice. I really believe that what Rush and Sean say is quite correct: we now have professional politicians who make their living and ensure their job security by spending other people’s money. And they do that by growing government, not shrinking it, which, again, is more in tune with the Communist Manifesto than the American Constitution.

God help us.

Reference Material

Return to Arguments Pro and Con page

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sun May 30 23:01:42 2010
From: Gertrude
Email:
Location: Tampa, Florida
Comment:

What about customers who have serious problems such as asthma? Where are they supposed to go if everyone can smoke everywhere?

Date: Mon May 31 09:26:58 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Gertrude:

To those restaurants or other commercial facilities that ban smoking. You are always free to take your business elsewhere. There is a market for smoking customers, and there is a market for non-smoking customers, and a free market will always satisfy those needs.

As Prof. Williams said, you are free to avoid smoke filled restaurants, and smokers are free to support them. Workers are free to shop for smoke free working environments, and others are free to seek employment where they can smoke. So long as tobacco is not illegal and you may not be imprisoned or otherwise punished for use or possession, why should there be laws on the books forcing all businesses to not allow smoking on their premises? Customers and workers and clients can vote with their dollars, and their available labor.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.