Why is the government even involved in dictating “safety” standards for new cars?
Did the EPA ever get put to a vote?
These are legitimate questions. But rarely asked – and forget about answered.
The Constitution lists – enumerates – the specific powers the government is supposed to have. The Constitution also clearly states that the specific powers not enumerated are “reserved” to the people and the states.
Well, where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government shall have the power to lay down bumper impact standards? Or require that cars be fitted with air bags and back-up cameras?
Just asking…
VW – and all the rest of them – have to bend knee to this “agency” (NHTSA) which no one that I am aware of ever elected. Isn’t the process supposed to be that we elect representatives who then write laws – which we have some degree of veto power over via removing from office representatives whom we decide no longer represent us?
How do we get rid of apparatchiks within an “agency” who never submit to an election – who are effectively tenured for life – but who have assumed the power to write laws? How did they get this power? And – better question – why do we defer to it, accept it as legitimate?
It’s palpably not.
We’re told as kids that we live in a country run by the consent of the governed. Really? Did any of you consent to any of this? Were you even asked?
Or did it just kind of happen – and now you’re required to accept it? Just because?
It is very odd. Or rather, at odds with what we’ve been told.
Remember the line about “no taxation without representation”? Well, uhm … what else is it when the government adds a cost to a new car that you’re forced to pay, but never asked you – never asked anyone – whether they thought it was a good idea, but rather simply decreed that it will be so?
If it walks like a duck…
The “safety” stuff is particularly obnoxious because the “safety” of an adult human being is clearly no business of anyone’s except that adult human being and perhaps his immediate family, who may exert emotional pressure on him to do – or not do – this or that. But there is no issue of the commons. A man not wearing his seat belt may get hurt as a result of this choice, but he hurts no one else as a result of his choice. A man who drives a 1,600 pound pre-air bag/crumple zone Beetle may regret it if he drives it into a tree – but that is his business, is it not? His driving the old Beetle doesn’t hurt anyone else, at any rate. And is therefore his business – assuming we are free adults and not livestock owned by others who have an interest in safeguarding their property.
Think about it.
Government decreeing that you must have air bags in your car is exactly the same as a nosey fishwife neighbor showing up on your doorstep with elbow pads and helmet and insisting that you wear them.
No one elected the neighbor, either.
As a practical consequence of these illegal (because, hey, it is not in the Constitution and therefore proscribed by the Constitution) and ever-escalating fatwas for “safer” and “safer” cars, we have heavier and heavier cars… steel being the primary practical way to achieve this. These government-mandated overweight cars then have a tough time passing muster with another nowhere-authorized-in-the-Constitution federal fatwa insisting that they deliver “x” miles-per-gallon.
Where did that come from?
Well, they will say they have authority via various evasions, euphemisms and legerdemain. But in plain English the fact is that Congress – which has the legal authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws – illegally transferred its legislative authority to these created-by-fiat “agencies” (Nixon simply decreed the EPA into existence) and the unelected apparatchiks within them. A general authority to (effectively) legislate as they please.
This is what EPA and NHTSA do every year – several times a year. They issue regulatory fatwas that have the same force and effect as any law passed by Congress. And yet, they are not legislators, never required to submit to a popular vote of yea or nay regarding what they do in our name but never once with even the slimmest pretext of our consent.
This is the argument car companies ought to present to the people. Not whether air bags and back-up cameras and so on are cost-effective or “work.” That is neither here nor there as regards the fundamental constitutional legitimacy of “agencies” arrogating unto themselves a legislative power nowhere authorized by the Constitution.
We’d almost certainly have fewer in the way of fatwas if Congress were tasked with doing its job – the job specified by the Constitution – the writing and passing of laws. Proposed laws might be debated, for one thing. And – ye gods – they’d be put to a vote.
Imagine that.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
At some point the Apparatchiks will begin to ignore the wishes of even the “elected” congress, courts and administrations.
Think that won’t happen?
It’s already happening. It’s at the state level in this case, but I am sure it will happen at the fed level too, if it isn’t already happening.
The state of Illinois finally raised the speed limits on the Chicago area tollways. They even went back and specially raised the limit on the tollway (the rural expressways have had the speed limit increased). But the “experts” running the tollways REFUSE to increase the speed limit.
So instead of having 70 speed limit signs waiting to go up when the bill passed and was signed into law by the governor, they are still dragging their feet years later.
Rich, they did the usual. They dragged their feet, falsified the data, and then created a few 60mph zones. Other than that I-294 is still 55mph. Despite being better than it was originally constructed which was for 70mph for 1950s cars. We can expect nothing further. The permanent unelected government won.
Texans raised hell from day one till after 70 was reinstated. We had all grown up driving whatever speed we desired and state troopers didn’t make much or work much. All that changed with 55 though and EVERYBODY was pissed. People never quit writing letters to the editors of newpapers and politicians had their feet held to the fire. They finally gave up and raised it to 75 even though nobody goes that slow. Some counties opted out of the ‘state’ limits and retained the right to make their own speed limits so now, once you get past Monahans on I-20 it turns into 80 and some parts of I-10 are 85.
Fast forward to the cities with lots of yankees though and no telling what the speed limits will be, 60 all the way through the Ft. Worth-Dallas metroplex……just cause…..and it gives all those little towns you don’t even know you’re passing through a great revenue base. And it’s that bastion of rich mercedes drivers and yankees where truckers are prohibited from the left lane, not just for passing but totally prohibited. This gives those little towns another revenue source.
When I was young speeding tickets were rare and you could take off for El Paso, 450 miles distant, and drive whatever speed you wanted. Now the roads are clogged with all sorts of ‘law enforcement’.
I won’t outright say they do what the DPS says they don’t, which is stopping certain people of certain colors and age but I’m glad in that way I’m old and white. At least you have to be hauling ass to get beyond a misdemeanor.
Yup.
The Supreme Court decreed radar detectors to be legal… yet VA refuses to acknowledge the court’s befehl. They do whatever the hell they like (as Clover used to accuse us of doing)!
I would love to see the state sued over speeding tickets like Chicago was sued over the red light cameras. Chicago, since it has lost the suit, “could be” forced to return nearly $700 million to those ticketed. Granted, I don’t see people getting their money back ever even if the court somehow ordered it (no court will ever do that). The city spent (wasted it mostly) the money long ago. And it hasn’t stopped them from continuing to write them.
I meant to say…are not the ones responsible for beginning the (4th) branch of the federal government.
Most places allow “homeless” to build homes because humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-OqJNRiZv0
Not the US though.
Zoning, doncha know. NIMBY!
The Constitution is the problem. See Sheldon Richman’s new book: America’s Counter-Revolution; The Constitution Revisited
http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/
The first thing the newly created government did was violate the Constitution and since then it has always done so.
The Constitution means nothing to the bureaucrat or congress critter let alone the moron who occupies the White House. It is to be ignored and often sneered and derided and sometimes even labeled raysist.
We no longer have a constitutional government. It is closer to a politburo with its accompanying apparatchiks.
And you and I are robbed by this politburo which then uses the money to spy on , terrorize and murder us.
Thanks to our all wonderful politburo we now have the Dept. of Homeland Security, the TSA and the NSA to make sure no nasty gets onto an airplane unless of course that person is helped onto a plane in Belgium by a Mossad agent and attempts to blow up a plane with firecrackers in his underwear.
Are we not grateful for living in this land of freedom and liberty.
Yes, a nation that displays to the rest of the world what demockracy truely looks like and you’d better do what we tell you or else…….we will BOMB YOU!
“The first thing the newly created government did was violate the Constitution”
Actually the Constitution began as a violation of the Articles of Confederation. The ‘Convention’ was called to propose amendments to the Articles, not replace them, especially not by vote of the “People” of the States rather than their State Legislatures. This is why Gary North calls it a coup d’etat. See his Conspiracy in Philadelphia.
And of course it was fairly early (1803 IIRC) that the Nazgul arrogated to themselves the right to determine constitutionality, rather than the States themselves.
Eric,
The fishwife that brought over the equipment for you to use may be benevolence and you have an option of saying “no thanks”. It is totally different when she brings the equipment to you and uses the gun to take your wallet to pay for it (and I’m sure she takes a lot more than just the cost of gear, so she may line her pockets).
Exactly, Tony…
Is The Walking Dead’s Negan a metaphor for government?
https://undercoverporcupine.bangordailynews.com/2016/04/05/politics/is-the-walking-deads-negan-a-metaphor-for-government/
How Negan and His New World Order is Like Modern Day Government
http://jamesthe.newsvine.com/_news/2016/04/04/35350540-how-negan-and-his-new-world-order-is-like-modern-day-government
Stationary Bandits vs Roving Bandits
http://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016-04-25-0100/the-walking-dead-negan-our-social-contract
The government is decreeing this because the knucklehead that has driven into the tree does not have health insurance and maybe no insurance of any kind. And now our publicly paid police and firemen are going to have to extricate him from the car at an expense that exceeds his ability to pay. And then he is going to go to the hospital for weeks of treatment that he cannot afford. And everything that he cannot afford is going to be taken from me via taxes and overpriced hospital bills.
Thus the government is socializing the expenses of the knucklehead that cannot drive safely or care for himself. I sympathize with your point and do not like the excess regulation and requirements one bit. I want options and free choice. I do not want to have to pay for what I don’t want.
So how do we deal with the idiots of the world? Can natural selection work? I don’t want agencies issuing rules and telling me what to do and I don’t want to be responsible in paying for other people’s idiocy. What is a solution?
Hi MRW,
The answer to this problem is very simple: No one has the moral right to force another person to pay for his care or for any other thing; therefore, there is no legal right to do so… well, ought not to be. This does not mean we have no obligation to help other people – we do. But we do not have the right to force others to “help.”
So, those who choose not to have insurance would assume the risk of doing so. Their risk could not be foisted off onto others.
The problem, then, is collectivist authoritarians who like to use other people’s money to “help” those who need it.
At one time there were organizations of men who agreed to form a society. These societies were there in case a member had a health problem or injury. They also contracted with doctors and other service providers to provide services such as what an ambulance service might provide today. These organizations were quite effective at keeping costs down and keeping service providers accountable.
Eventually these societies were driven out by professional groups like the AMA, who didn’t like the power they had gained over the service providers.
Hi Eric,
Yup – and it was a more benevolent and humane system because it did not rely on coercion. I willingly/gladly help my elderly neighbors with various things (pushing snow in winter, for instance) but I would resent them if they forced me to “help” them. That’s what government “help” does. It turns people into antagonists rather than friends and neighbors, fellow human beings.
Even when I was a broke college student in Denver I would still try to help homeless people out, even if it was just pocket change. Uncle tells us we shouldn’t directly help homeless, because it keeps them “on the streets” somehow. Despite the billions (trillions) of dollars spent by government on welfare and public housing, Uncle just can’t get the homeless people off the streets. Reagan told us that they want to be homeless, implying that there are so many programs and helpful social workers out there you’d have to intentionally remove yourself from the system. Maybe he had a point, maybe not. But the more likely answer is that the homeless are as much victims of the government aid system (and War On Drugs™) as they are victims of their own minds. If government gets rid of the homeless, then what will the government bureaucrat do? Find even more reasons to “attack” the homeless problem, much like Uncle chasing after ever smaller amounts of vehicle exhaust, and ever more vehicle safety.
When I see folks on the corner w/a sign reading ‘Homeless, please help,’ I think the problem is not likely to be that they are homeless. That is a symptom. The problem is usually that they are jobless. That could be their fault. They may have decided that they can ‘earn’ more by begging than by honest labor. Moreover, said ‘donations’ need not be reported to Uncle in a way that will reduce their ‘entitlements.’
But more likely, they are unemployed (or underemployed) because of how Uncle has screwed up the marketplace.
I’ve noticed in the last year a great deal more people hitching and sometimes panhandling when they hit a town. It’s obvious some are carrying everything they own too, sometimes even a dog that probably makes it easier to get a ride in one aspect, harder in another.
I see a lot of couples too. I used to give a lot of people rides but I can’t in a truck thanks to more laws.
I’ve read articles of how much rent has risen since the housing crash of ’08 so being homeless is more common just from that fact alone. How many landlords will adjust pay to what a potential renter can make? Slim to none I expect, much closer to the latter.
Yeah, apparently the rents in Boston are going crazy.
Wages aren’t, though…
And it seems they’d rather leave the place empty than rent for less.
Yes, we have a lot of homeless here…
Stinks. Puritans are @$$holes on a good day…
https://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dr-annette-bosworth.jpg
I’m of two minds, and it’s hard to figure this shite out.
I DO NOT support the welfare state, because that state presumes all indigents are worthy and not there because of their own failures/failings. So “we” must support them (at gunpoint.)
OTOH, I’ve BEEN on that end of things – lost my job, was maxed out already because I’d been caring for others, and I lost everything I had, basically. We had to get assistance for a few months until I got a new job (and this was WITH the woman working her @$$ off.)
Also have a friend in PA who was a “raging alcoholic” (my word, “raging,” used to indicate he was having a rollicking good time. Not a good thing.) He admits he was an alcoholic and an addict, and he’s been correcting it. Using lots of social programs to do it. And he’s smarter than damn near everyone I know who is “normal.”
As an aside, the next most intelligent person I know….? Tried to kill himself. Found out he couldn’t do it by hanging, his neck was too strong. 😉 (He’s still kicking, BTW.)
Most of the enforced charity is targeting those who SHOULD be DOA. They’re willfully indigent, or totally incompetent, a total failure of Darwin’s law.
I DESPISE being forced to support them.
I’d HAPPILY support someone who just hit a spate of bad luck, or even screwed up and needs a little help to get their head screwed back on straight.
The people who have issues these days, though, are the hard-working, honest, and moral… Bad luck or no, they’re losing their minds as they see avarice, cowardice, stupidity, and inadequacy rewarded – and all good behavior demonized.
BTW: Enforced “charity” is theft, in case that wasn’t clear….
Exactly. The person without a helmet while motorcycling, or not using the seat belt, or going without health insurance–the difficult but proper answer is: alas, but c’est la vie. Society will never allow critically injured people to go untreated, even if they brought it upon themselves, so we’ll always be dunned for their stupidity. Ah, well.
MRW, please don’t blame the knuckleheads who are fellow tax slaves just like yourself for this. If you follow the money; I strongly suspect you will find that the insurance or the medical industries caused that. If not; then it was merely another power grab. Just try getting hold of a congresscritter in person for a concern YOU have, and you will see how much he really cares about your problems.
One of my colleagues asked me once, half joking: “Why do we have to register vehicles? We don’t register snowblowers. It’s just another tax grab.”
He’s right.
Yes, he’s right, but don’t try running your snow blower on the ‘publicly owned’ street. Of course, in many cities, you can be fined for NOT clearing the ‘public’ sidewalk that crosses ‘your’ property.
The only difference is – and I agree with you – and it’s a significant difference – that no one has any particular need to steal your snowblower.
Foreman on a job down in Blue Grass Hollow put a lock on the toolshed…
Uncle Jeb tole’ him, “Ain’t no need for that here, man. Ain’t nobody stole nothin’ to work with…”
(From “Favorite Jokes of Mountain Folks in Boogar Holler”)
Yes. Great points. Who the eff asked these guys what new cars should have?
Never mind that these “political science” majors fancy themselves as actual scientists. Scientists that can repeal the laws of economics, gravity, and the 1st – 3rd laws of motion.
I make it a point to have everyone at work call me “daredevil” since I drive a 2004 Nissan Frontier. After all, it would pass zero current impact standards. It is “completely unsafe” by today’s standards. Pelosi would likely be pissing her depends if she had to ride in it (assuming she has any spare time after trying to save the planet)
Therefore, since I take such inarguably huge risks with my very life every single day – I must be a daredevil.
In fact – I think that anyone who doesn’t drive a brand new car should be referred to as a daredevil – or a “polluter.”
I hope it makes people think how absurd this safety cult is becoming.
Political science majors my ass. My US rep admitted he couldn’t cut it in the market place selling insurance as one thing he tried. Of course now that he “makes law”, he’s in the forefront to mandate huge insurance for crops that translates back to you and me paying subsidy farmers a much greater amount of profit than very few of us will ever realize.
Brian posted a link to a Walter Williams article that addressed this to my complete satisfaction.
When you create socialism in a society then things the politicians decide to support in that effort will increase in cost. I recall when you could afford more than one health insurance policy and Make Money when you got sick.
Why didn’t the insurance companies yell about that? Because they were making money too. Once it’s mandated though they have free reign to shove it up your ass charge-wise and if the state must pay for it the hospital and care providers will pad hell out of that bill. I first saw that as a young man and it’s only gone off the deep end since.
Ed mentioned some sum of well over a million dollars for his hospitalization after his wreck that would have been affordable for an individual to pay in countless other countries. The flipside is a totally socialist society such as England has, people get sub-par care in institutions that make “institution’ seem even worse than what you normally think of when you hear that word.
“When you create socialism in a society then things the politicians decide to support in that effort will increase in cost.”
Economics 101 – when something decreases in price (whether by subsidy or any other means), more will be demanded. When more is demanded, sooner or later the price will increase. The true price, anyway, barring gunvermin interference such as price controls.
MY point is when anything is mandated by govt., the price increases. That was the entire point of getting that legislation passed. Health care was affordable, doctors made more money than most but not to the extent you now see. And speaking of doctors, “specialists” now make so much money it’s obscene. This is part and parcel of mandated insurance.
No magic here, everything the govt. mandates becomes unaffordable.
“This is part and parcel of mandated insurance.”
It is also part and parcel of gunvermin mandated ‘licensing’ of doctors (and other ‘professionals’).
Competition is key to keeping prices low, but it is the gunvermin that allows, in many cases even mandates, monopoly situations. Microsoft was not the problem. AT&T was not the problem. Back in the late 19th century, when ‘Anti-Trust’ legislation came into vogue, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were decreasing prices on kerosene (the primary product of Standard Oil at the time) and steel. “But they were using monopoly pricing to keep competitors our of the market!” And that was hurting the consumers (supposedly the ones needing protection) how?
Gag, what right does the govt have to continually tax you on the full value of stuff you already own?
1.OK, I can concede the use of having a central body to provide services that individuals cannot on their own afford (public works ) but that aside there is such a thing as user fees ,maybe the govt has a little utility in this instance.
2. I grudgingly concede (but sure as hell dont like ) the fact that perhaps if we can afford to buy something, perhaps would should pay a sales tax as a return to the society that has made it possible for us to have the means to acquire made things and property that has worth (real estate ) Just saying.
3.This is what kills me however ,why do you have to keep paying a tax on the full value of something you already own?( this means you never own anything ,you just rent from the govt ) Why not just a small stipend on the increase in value or no tax at all if it loses value ?
Have to quit now this whole sucky system is making me sick .
Hi Kevin,
Indeed.
The fact that none of us currently has even the prospect of ever being a freeholder – actually owning a piece of land/our home outright and beholden to none – speaks volumes about the true nature of the plantation we’re living on.
Massa lets us live on a piece of land/in a house… but it’s ultimately his house.
We don’t even own our cars. We own nothing, not even our own bodies.
Just imagine what it be like – how good it would feel- to actually own your land/home. Once paid off, it is yours – and because you owe no one any more money, you would have the possibility of no longer needing to work/earn money to pay bills. You would be free in a way unimaginable to modern Americans, who are so conditioned to their servitude they don’t even see it as such.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the main reason for taxation, in theoretical principle, isn’t the people who will get the money, or some duty to the collective, or anything so obvious. Rather that it prevents the accumulation of wealth. Accumulation of wealth which threatens the system because it would allow for people to be independent.
“Accumulation of wealth which threatens the system”
I think you may be on to sump’n there, son.
Hi Brent,
I think so, too. It’s certainly a “side benefit.” Accumulation of wealth leads to free time and independence; these two items are not compatible with the Company Town model we see all around us.
Taxes only apply to certain people. Even some CEO’s have admitted there’s a “corporation loophole” and none pay that supposed 35%. Virtually every corporation operates somewhere there are no taxes.
Apple is in a court battle with the IRS now and probably many others who have moved offshore. Most of the big pharm corp’s have foreign HQ’s.
I find it very interesting that Chevron moved it’s global HQ to Midland, Tx. Would they have done so with a 35% tax hanging over their profits? That’s an easy answer.
We’re trying to survive the 30 years of legislation to reduce the US population to a 3rd world status. It’s even hit Hollywood and some of those dolts have wised up.
I recently spoke with a friend about some movies that were above the crowd so to speak. He remarked he despised one of the actors. Well, if you refuse to watch a movie because of the private lives and beliefs of the actors you’re probably not going to watch a movie ever again if you’re awar of the actors politics.
Eight, those who are free of taxes are dependents on the system and those who are driving it. This says a lot about the true nature of taxation.
I agree with you BrentP, but I would add the lust for more power to your list. A good example of this is the useless time change that we are forced to put up with twice per year. I bet many of the politicians have orgasms thinking about the thousands of people per minute forced to set their clocks in the hours before midnight.
It’s all accelerating. I came across two pieces of news today that got me pissed before my first cup of coffee.
The DOE has regulated that industrial 3-Phase AC motors have to meet some new efficiency standard and the costs are going up.
And the EPA along with some Berkeley institute of being a pain in the ass is going after… Roof Racks! They cause too much CO2 and drag efficiency down.
It’s all accelerating. No shitsky….and picking up speed exponentially.
Well, I guess Buckminster(what a name)Fuller had it dead to rights when he said
“If you take all the machinery in the world and dump it in the ocean, within months more than half of all humanity will die and within another six months they’d almost all be gone; if you took all the politicians in the world, put them in a rocket, and sent them to the moon, everyone would get along fine. — “
“This is what EPA and NHTSA do every year – several times a year.” And these 2 are just a small fraction of the alphabet soup that makes up the executive branch of the gunvermin. There are, on average, nearly 200 pages/day added to the Federal Register, all given the force of law, even though none of them were written by Congress, as required by the Constitution.
The number one musical on Broadway these days is “Hamilton,” a musical adaptation of the life of Alexander Hamilton. I haven’t seen it, but my guess is it has nothing to do with the fantastic book “Hamilton’s Curse.”
These are dark days for freedom. The population knows something is terribly wrong, but doesn’t have the knowledge to do anything about it. They’ve been brought up in a system that tells them freedom means sending our money to Washington and our children overseas. We’re told that a soldier losing a leg is “the price we pay for freedom,” while some idiot dressed up like a girl demands the freedom to use the ladies room. Was that really why the soldier lost his leg?
Meanwhile, business has devolved into a way of extracting a few dollars a month from everyone they can. The same Coke/Pepsi choice we have in politics is becoming the norm for just about everything. The “service” providers are chasing after the lowest possible price (and offering “premium” products at 10X the low price), to get you in the door, then add on all the extra fees -fees that should be considered the cost of doing business and calculated in the sales price. But if they actually advertised the actual cost, not only would their competitors use it against them, the perception is that it’s all the same stuff, so you might as well go with the cheapest.
I’m not against marketing, even deceptive marketing is fine by me. Eventually the truth will come out. As long as there’s a healthy marketplace in which alternative ideas can have a chance. We’re so far off the rails now because of Uncle’s thumb on the scales I fear the system will eventually just grind to a halt. We’ve already seen the wheels come off the tech industry, because there’s no exit strategy for startups Hoping to get acquired by Google is not an exit strategy. And unfortunately we’re all programmed to want “free” stuff, without ever thinking about the long term consequences. Remember, if you’re not paying for a product, you are the product. (and remember to support Eric so he doesn’t have to play the advertising game)
We’ve also lost an entire generation of fantastic programmers to Wall Street banks and government agencies. And there’s the whole government contractor driven web site industry, where agencies pay out millions of dollars for simple web sites that don’t work and have fatal flaws (like the Obamacare exchange sites), and no way to penalize the contractors, in fact they’re usually rewarded by getting more money to do what they should have done right the first time. When the media points out the problem, we all just accept that the government agency is inept, yet we continue to support the system because we’re all indoctrinated by the system to believe that the alternative is Somalia (or at least the narrative of Somalia).
What we’re never told about Somalia is that it was once a Communist country, and because the government controlled everything they couldn’t grow crops in what is basically the African equivalent of Nebraska. Now the topsoil is gone, no one has any capital to invest, and because there’s no clear title to the land, there’s no way to defend the land against the “warlords” -who are far more likely to be like the Cosa Nostra than the villain from the Mad Max movies.
“The same Coke/Pepsi choice we have in politics” that’s actually a very apt comparison. It’s only a matter of taste and personal preference, no substantive difference. And both are unhealthy for you.
Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to delegate its authority. As such, none — none! — of these rules, regulations, and decrees are Constitutional.
Congress is supposed to up/down vote on every last item that comes before it — not pass 3,000 pages of garbage they don’t bother to read and then hand the nuts and bolts over to faceless apparatchiks.
Free? No, not really…
“Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to delegate its authority.”
And that is assuming you accept the legitimacy of the Constitution. I grant you that life would be better, probably mostly tolerable, if the gunvermin restricted itself within the parameters of the Constitution. But remember what Lysander Spooner said back in the 19th century – either the Constitution was designed to allow for the form gunvermin has taken, or it was powerless to stop it. (my paraphrase)
The constitution is like a light saber: “This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon… for a more civilized age.”
A light saber was made when there was relative peace and freedom in the galaxy.
A light saber has a very limited range and scope.
A light saber requires skill and knowledge to operate properly.
A light saber is a fictional construct, a plot element designed to appeal to our hero’s sense of nostalgia.
The constitution, as far as I can see, was never adhered to. Even Jefferson ignored the congress and violated the thing.
So did Washington: “Whiskey Rebellion” was a tax revolt… Put down by federal force.
Hi Jean,
Washington was kind of the Ronald Reagan of his time; a semi-senile old coot who was controlled by a Golem (Hamilton). That “bastard son of a Scotch pedlar” (maybe the best thing John Adams ever said) is arguably the ur cause of ll our woes today.
You are right Brother John, but the congresscritters are not the ones responsible for beginning the bureaucratic branch of the federal government. The CONstitution allowed the President to have a cabinet and was silent about the establishment of a bureaucracy except for the 10th amendment, which of course was ignored. It was the executive branch who started this tyranny:
http://www.siue.edu/~dhostet/classes/501/assign/wilson.htm