Conversations with Enrico Pallazzo

Okay, I haven't actually been chatting with "Enrico Pallazzo.  As per the request of the friend with whom I have been talking, I've given him a nom de plume.  The first thing that popped into my head was, in all seriousness, Enrico Pallazzo.  Consider it an homage to the recently deceased comedic genius, Leslie Nielsen.

It would be profitable to post these questions, thoughts, and meanderings so here they are.  Enrico asks good questions, is eager to engage and learn, and is interested in gathering as much knowledge as possible concerning the Founding, the Constitution, and basic economics from sources not hung up on pushing agendas.  I informed him of my agenda for a freer society, individual rights, and personal responsibility and responded accordingly.

The entire exchange would take up too much room for one post so I'll post it by sections over a few days.  Besides grammatical corrections and omission of unrelated topics everything in Enrico's e-mails are original.  The same goes with my responses, as well as omission of poorly worded sections.  (Enrico has been notified):

Adam,

I've got some good news and some bad news for you.  The bad news is that I'm not so sure I want to learn more about FDR right now.  The good news, which I think you'll appreciate, is that I have several other questions that I'd like to discuss first.  One of my Christmas gifts was a book entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me - Everything Your American History Textbooks Got Wrong. I'm not quite finished with it yet, but like any good book, I find myself with more questions than answers. 

 - Apparently a major turning point in government power distribution occurred during the Woodrow Wilson administration - during this time America was the closest it's ever been to a police state.  We had troops in several different countries, we even invaded Russia! 

 - I had no idea about all the racism that occurred prior to the civil rights movement, I mean, I never realized how bad it truly was.  There were points were I had to put the book down and pause because I was so shocked.

Anyway, we gotta meet up and talk soon...maybe just not about FDR.  But I think I'm definitely on your bandwagon.

Enrico Palozzo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enrico,

It sounds like you are an avid reader; that is terrific.  Yes, reading history--the good, unedited-for-partisan-reasons kind--will blow your hair back.  Reading such history, although disturbing and unsettling, is a bit comforting oddly enough.  Comforting, in that once you get an appreciation for how bad things were from a civil rights, free society perspective, it makes you realize we've been down terrible roads before in American history and emerged out of them.  This all puts how crappy things are now in a broader perspective and can offer some grounded hope that things are not insurmountable. 

Indeed, the Wilson years are some of the darkest in American history.  Look up the APL, the American Protective League, and see how Wilson's administration orchestrated Americans spying on Americans and tossing them in jail for daring to question the government.  Spooky stuff right out of Orwell's 1984 but it actually happened right here in America.  We still don't know exactly how many thousands of Americans were thrown in jail without habeus corpus, trial, or representation.  Wildly unconstitutional and scarily dictatorial, that's old Woody!

Wilson hated the Constitution as it was a roadblock to unchecked government power.  His ph.d. dissertation reads like a how-to manual for getting around the limits of a constitutional government and empower government to do whatever it wishes. As president he laid the rhetorical and intellectual groundwork for the New Deal that came along twenty years later.  If I had to list the three worst president WW would be on the list.

Whenever you again want to chat FDR let me know.  So much of his legacy was screwing up how everyday Americans view government and society, the economy and the market, and what we have come to reflexively expect as "rights."  I do highly recommend Powell's book FDR's Folly.  It is highly researched, documented, and well laid out.  It is also written conversationally, which I always appreciate, so it reads smoothly.

-Adam

Voting With Your Feet

We would never tolerate paying $16 for a gallon of milk.  We would simply go elsewhere.  I'll take my wallet and use my feet to go elsewhere, thank you very little.

Way too many Americans have the opposite view of government and laws.  We tend to look past local and state governments and expect problems to get addressed inside the Beltway.   Besides local potholes and school taxes, no problem seems too small (local) for Congress.  This attitude reduces our opportunity to vote with our feet and wallet, leaving us with only one lonely ballot and a set of crossed fingers every two years.

We are simply less free when every political issue becomes federalized: we can no longer move elsewhere to escape the (over)reach of bad laws.  If, for example, enough people in Maine want single payer state-run health care, they can have it at the state level.  People can leave and people can move there.  Businesses will come and go.  An economic force is created, equal and opposite forces will react within the state of Maine.  But once the same titans of finance that brought us Social Security, Medicare, and the Post Office grasp control of health care, where can we move?

Likewise, federal bailouts of profligate state legislatures punish individuals who live in fiscally responsible states by confiscating their property and transferring said property to irresponsible states.  What's the point in living in Texas if you are going to be taxed twice, once for your own state budget and a second time for California's?  And what's the incentive for California legislatures to get things right?

The Tea Party certainly does it part to encourage Congress to step back into its constitutional role.  Expecting government to control itself from the inside, however, has its obvious limits, no matter how many Tea Party candidates breech the Beltway mote.  Like any good reform, change has to begin with the public opinion of us benighted proles.  This process begins by no longer expecting Congress to tackle every single issue, then encouraging fellow proles to see the light.  With enough public opinion and time, the holier-than-thous in D.C. will play along.

I hope you voted today.  You vote every day many times a day just by existing in a market economy.  If you enjoy the options that allow you such a high and affordable standard of living, expect similar options politically.  Our political standard of living really should not be any lower than economic one.

When Weird is Good: Returning to The Constitution

In his most recent article, Jonah Goldberg highlights the progressive vision of what the Constitution means to members of Congress and the president.  That vision?  Nothing.

Goldberg cites the reaction to Christine O'Donnell's insistence that she would, if elected to the U.S. Senate, support legislation only if it is constitutional.  The progressive reaction is very revealing.

Posting good articles for review on a blog puts one in the uncomfortable position of adding commentary to what is essentially good commentary.  (How presumptuous.)  There is not much that can, or should, be added to Goldberg's piece.  Nonetheless, I cannot help commenting on this quotation from a progressive "expert" on the Supreme Court, included in the article:

"How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?"

What is provided for in the Constitution is a set of clearly defined, limited legislative and executive powers in Article 1 and 2, respectively.   What is also included is an oath to uphold and defend said Constitution, required of all federal and state elected and appointed officials, found in Article 6.  Oh, and this little ditty is also right there in Article 6, juuuust before that whole oath to support and defend the Constitution thingy:

 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."[Emphasis weirdly added.]

Hmmmm.  Let's think about this.  If all elected officials (like what O'Donnell aspires to be) are required to "uphold and protect" the Constitution, by the Constitution itself, and they hold up their hands and (presumably) solemnly swear to do so as a prerequisite to holding office, how is it "weird" for a senator to, well, acknowledge she will do what her oath entails?

As Goldberg points out, the idea there is no, or should not be, constitutional limits on legislation is a new one, relatively speaking.  Progressive era intellectuals introduced the idea of delimiting the power of government and its regulatory agencies in order to pursue the demands of nebulous notion of social justice.  Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom" and FDR's "New Deal" were just that, new to the American political conscious.  A very big sell had to be made to Americans, what, with their historically-unique and inherent suspicion of big government with less limits on its power in their lives.

Now, for over sixty years we have been living in the not-totally-socialist-nor-completely-free society that Hayek rightly labels the "welfare state."  We now see the staggering fiscal costs of having both political parties acknowledge this welfare state as the almighty epicenter of politics from which all policies emanate.

On the same hand we are young enough as a country to still recall, and hence know the virtue of, the constitutionally limited government of the Founding. 

Enter the weirdness progressives and much of the public see in the idea of actually respecting the Constitution and returning it to its rightful place in legislative politics.  It follows quite reasonably that, for many, using the Constitution and not the entitlement-obsessed doctrine of the welfare state as the epicenter of legislative and executive action is downright weird.

But, as in many cycles of history, what was old is suddenly new again, and what is new is viewed as weird.  The Constitution is older than the progressive assault on it, so any call to bring back a constitutionally limited government, although not new, will be new (and weird) to anyone who assumes the role of government is to morph into the all-encompassing nanny state.

The Tea Party, with all its clamoring for fiscal responsibility and individual freedom, bases its arguments and hope in a return to limiting the power of the federal government.  What is the most effective and principled way to do this?  A return to the Constitution.  Its already been there for a long time.  It simply needs re-embraced. 

There is nothing magical about what's in the Constitution, even though it is an extraordinary document, written and adopted out of "reflection and choice" as The Federalist Papers remind us, unlike the beginning of any other country on earth.  Its primary virtue is it limits the power of the government and allows for a society in which individuals may live freely and prosper.  Progressives have long rejected this notion and believe the Constitution and a respectful adherence to it is a roadblock to the social justice that can only be provide by the benevolent and unrestricted hand of government. 

It is good this notion of a constitutionally-centered government is new to a lot of people and weird to others.  Many, after some understandable reticence, might just show an interest in learning about the weird new thing.  (Kind of like poking a dead exotic animal with a stick.)  And just as important, the weirdness of it all reminds everyone how far we've drifted from the Constitution---and it forces us to make the case whether or not returning to its limited form of government is a good thing or a bad thing. 

Ignoring the issue and kicking the political and fiscal can down the road would just be, well, weird.   



 

Remembering The Economic Part of Checks and Balances

It is safe to say most Americans understand there is a limit to the power of government.  There is no consensus, however, on what that limit is or even how that limit is maintained.

There is a limited scope of activities afforded to the federal government in the Constitution itself.  Article 1, Section 8 is the touchstone list “delegated” powers afforded to Congress.  The “necessary and proper” clause of that same section has historically been the legislative escape clause for Congresses looking beyond its short constitutional charter of powers.

The very structure of the Constitution also affords a restraint on just how much the government can “get done.”  James Madison’s prudential observations in Federalist 51 highlights how the separation of powers pits one department of the government against the other in an internal struggle to keep each other from encroaching on the other’s authority.  Making “ambition to counteract ambition,” results in one more restraint on government power and overreach.

And there is the simple yet overlooked reason why there is a limit on government power: we have a written constitution.  If there is little or no restriction on government, why have anything written down?  Furthermore, if Congress may pass any law not strictly prohibited in Article 1, why have a handful of permitted powers listed in the first place?

One of the most overlooked and effective checks on the power of the government is the notion and existence of private property and its voluntary exchange among private individuals—what we call the free market capitalism.  When there is a clear delineation between what is private and what is public, there is a clear limit on what activities in which the government may and may not engage.

Ludwig von Mises, in his classic exposition, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, remarks:

"There is an inherent tendency in all governmental power to recognize no restraints on it operation and to extend the sphere of its dominion as much as possible...If only private property did not stand in the way!  Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state.  It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will.  It allows other fores to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power...It is the soil in which the seeds of freedom are nurtured and in which the automony of the individual and ultimaely all intellectual and material progress are rooted." [Emphasis added.]

The recognition of and respect for private property sets a “No Trespassing” sign (or, for you Lord of The Rings geeks—like myself—a Gandolf-like You Shall Not Pass! declaration) between ourselves and our economy and the authoritarian proclivities of government.  Hence, the vital importance of insisting on economic freedom: If we are free to voluntarily exchange our property among ourselves, we create forces outside of and in opposition to the power of government.  We create one more check on the power of government.

Think of it as an economic checks and balances.  We, the People create and maintain the free market economy through the voluntary exchange of our private property, making arbitrary government actions less likely.

In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman also stresses the importance of private property and its resulting free market as an economic counter force to the power of government: "History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom." 

Why?:  In a free market society economic power is widely dispersed among many millions of hands in which government has a limited role prescribed by law.

If government comes to direct and control the economy by laying claim to too much of our private property, it comes to control both political and economic power over our lives.  Economic power is then transferred from millions of hands working through voluntary exchange who hold no coercive power over each other, and concentrated into a few sets of hands in government regulatory agencies who already possess coercive political power.  

“By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power.  It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.” [Emphasis added.]

Thus, the folly of believing we can remain free by being only vigilant about civil rights such as free speech and freedom of religion but neglecting to jealously guard our economic freedom and private property rights.  We cannot afford the confluence of political power and economic power in the same hands.

We need to be mindful of our economic contribution to the “checks and balances” on our government.

Three more things need discussed here: the insidious power of government-sponsored monopolies, the 16th Amendment, and what passes for legitimate government regulation.  Let’s save those for other Chalk Talks.

Reflecting Upon and Choosing the Consitution, Again

After full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a New Constitution for the United States of America….It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destine to depend, for heir political constitutions, on accident and force.  [Emphasis Added] From Federalist 1

Hamilton's above remarks were addressed to the people of the state of New York during the period of the ratification debates, after the Constitutional Convention and before the people of each state voted for or against adopting the novel Constitution.

And novel it was.  For the first time in its history a segment of mankind convened, deliberated, debated, and formed a charter of government that set the governing parameters of the central  government.  It was the result of reflection, rationally derived from the minds of men who knew history, human nature, and politics. 

There were prefiguring constitutions such as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the founding charters of the original colonial governments.  These documents were original in their own right, but there were elements of "force and accident" that necessitated their creation.  The Articles of Confederation, for example, were hurriedly drawn and implemented in the face of the Revolutionary War.

What set the Constitution apart was its deliberate and planned conception, its scope and ingenuity, and its intent to properly limit the powers of central government to protect the liberties of the people while affording said government the requisite power to maintain stability and avoid the suicidal tendencies of the few examples of popular governments (democracies, that is) history had to afford.

Equally novel was the manner in which the Constitution was to become the supreme law of the land: It was accepted by choice.  Ratification conventions were drawn among the several states with the sole purpose of voting up or voting down the proposed Constitution.  By design of the Constitution itself, such conventions were to be composed of the people themselves; state legislatures were not allowed the authority to vote for or against the Constitution.  Hence, the people of the respective states voted, not the states themselves.  (This is an important distinction as it further solidified the popular character and beginnings of the Constitution, and supported Madison's contention that the new government was a federal one, neither wholly national nor merely another compact of states.  It was partly national, partly a government of respective states.  See Federalist 39)

The Constitution was also a boldly liberal document, liberal in the classical sense and in the broadly novel approach it took to difficult issues.  The words, "slavery," or "slaves" do not appear anywhere, yet it deals directly with the issue by severely limiting the voting power of the slave holding districts by reducing their representation in the House by 3/5.  This, contrary to contemporary misgivings, was a great step forward as it diminished the number of pro-slavery votes in legislation.

And who was barred from voting for representatives in the House?  Put another way, who was permitted, in the Constitution, to vote for members of the House?  If you said, "White property holding males" go to the back of the class: No one was denied!  The qualifications were left to the state legislature to decide. This left the possibility completely open to wider suffrage.  This is a striking historical step forward when considering the broader historical and world context (it was 1789) and the state of equal rights, minority rights, and free society.

Looking at our constitutional history, it is good to remember its unique origin, implementation, and unique features.  What is equally important is to take a step back and consider how far we have departed from the constitutional government under which we are supposed to live freely.  We need to ask ourselves, is it time we once again "reflect" upon our situation and bring about a constitutional change through"choice"?

The grassroots stirrings of the past year and a half indicate there is a lot of attention placed on the state of our government, economy, debt, and freedoms.  Many more people are turning an eye to our situation and to our future.  Happily, there is a lot of reflecting taking place as numerous educational groups are once again reading our history and studying the Constitution (Yay!  Imagine that.)  The connection of individual liberty to constitutionally limited government is a concept that is spreading, again.  A significant number of Americans have made a good choice, and this is a very good thing.

Who, then, is left to reflect and choose, once again, the Constitution and embrace and respect its authority as the charter by which government is to conduct itself?

That would be the ensconsed powers-that-be in both political parties.  They can be made to "reflect" upon the virtue of following the Constitution, that reflection being the consideration of their likelihood to lose their offices come election time.  Here is the choice to be reflected: "If I disregard limited constitutional government, I don't get reelected."

And election time includes the primaries.

The more upward pressure from the grassroots level, the more likely politicians will again choose the Constitution.  If we're frank with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that history teaches the Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself and the politicians that swear to uphold and protect it will discard and destroy it when we let them off of their electoral leash.

As a culture we are learning and relearning our Constitution.  Now we are turning the hard work of teaching it to our politicians.  They've become too much like poor old Barney Fife: