The Tenth Amendment Movement

[BIGUN 1,321]

Was relaxing with some of my fellow veterans yesterday and one of my former Majors is telling me a story about the "Tenth Amendment Movement... A grassroots movement to work with state legislators to restore state sovereignty over those powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution."

According to the retired Major, the next step is that instead of taking the fuel taxes and sending them to the federal government for them to redistribute back to the states for the use of highway infrastructure funds; keep the fuel tax in State and let the States decide for themselves which highway infrastructure requires rebuilding. [Note: I could not validate this statement]

On one hand, I think its a good idea, but on the other, have we become so interlaced on not only a global economy; but on our own national economy that we may need to, "Be careful what we ask for?"

EDIT: For example, in my world, disaster response begins at the local level, but the financials to pay come from the federal declaration (fed dec). There is at least one major Hurricane landfall along the Atlantic/Gulf coast annually resulting in billions for assistance. Can/Will the States build up their own coffers for such funds. Concurrently, we here in Oklahoma have on average 170 tornadoes and wildfires a year which also result in millions in damage and a little CNN coverage... but for the most part, we as a State take care of it ourselves.

Quote

James Madison, known as “the father of the Constitution,” said in The Federalist, No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Leading the charge is Oklahoma. On February 18, its House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1003 by a vote of 83 to 13, resolving “that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.” HJR 1003 also states “that this serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.” It directs that copies of the resolution be distributed to, among others, the president of the United States, the president of the U.S. Senate, and the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key, the resolution’s sponsor, was largely prompted to act by two unconstitutional federal steps — the pending Real ID Act, which would compel Americans to have a national ID card (threatening our privacy and moving us closer to a surveillance state), and the No Child Left Behind Act, a completely unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government into education. Key has said, “The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time. The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.” He told The New American: “All of us have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing.”

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/881-tenth-amendment-movement-taking-on-the-feds

Quote

Alabama
House: HJR298 "Tenth Amendment to U. S. Constitution, sovereignty under claimed, federal government notified to cease and desist mandates, certain federal legislation prohibited or repealed."
Senate:

Arizona
House : HCR2024 "[T]he State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States...."
Senate : SCR1038 "[T]he State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." First reading on February 2, 2009.

Arkansas
House : HCR1011 "NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN: THAT the State of Arkansas hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Filed February 20, 2009. A House committee voted down HCR1011 by a vote of 8-10 (along party lines) on March 4, 2009.
Senate :

Georgia
House : HR280 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GEORGIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY: that the State of Georgia hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced on February 12, 2009.
Senate :

Idaho
House: HJM4 "[T]he state of Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced by the House State Affairs Committee by a vote of 13-4 on March 4, 2009.
Senate:

Indiana
House :
Senate : SC37 " Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring: SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

Iowa
House:
Senate: SCR1 "BE IT RESOLVED ... That the State of Iowa hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Filed January 27, 2009.

Kansas
House:
Senate: SCR1609 "[T]he State of Kansas hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." February 11, 2009.

Kentucky
House: HCR168 "The Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced February 24, 2009. A similar resolution, HCR172, was also introduced on February 24.
Senate:

Michigan
House: HCR4 "A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States." January 22, 2009.

Senate: SCR4 "[W]e affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government." Referred to Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2009.

Minnesota
House : HF997 "A resolution memorializing the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States and affirming Minnesota's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." February 19, 2009.
Senate :

Mississippi
House: HCR69 "[T]he State of Mississippi hereby reinforces the fundamental principles and authority of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States...." Introduced March 5, 2009. Status.
Senate:

Missouri
House: HCR13 "[T]he members of the [Missouri] House of Representatives ... the Senate concurring therein, hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." On March 10 the House Rules Committee voted 6 to 5 to report HCR13 out of commitee for a vote by the full House with a rating of "Do Pass." Status.
Senate:

Montana
House : HB246 "Montana Firearms Freedom Act.... The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889." Introduced January 13, 2009. On February 14, HB246 was approved on its second reading by a vote of 64-36 in the Montana House. The House must pass the bill on its third reading before it can be sent to the Senate.
Senate :

New Hampshire
House : HCR6 "A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles. ( Click here for video of Glenn Beck interview with resolution's sponsor NH State Rep. Daniel Itse) Vote expected in full House on March 4 . HCR6 defeated on March 4 by a vote of 150-216.
Senate :

New Mexico
House: HJR27 "[New Mexico hereby claims] sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the constitution of the United States." Status.
Senate:

Ohio
House: HCR11 "[T]he State of Ohio hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."
Senate:

Oklahoma
House : HJR1003 "A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers." Passed by House 83-13 on February 18, 2009.
Senate : SJR10 "A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers."

Oregon
House: HJM17 "The Congress of the United States of America is requested to direct the federal government to immediately cease and desist imposing mandates that are beyond the scope of those powers expressly delegated by the Constitution of the United States to the federal government, so that the State of Oregon may freely exercise the sovereignty due the State of Oregon under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." First Reading March 10, 2009.
Senate:

Pennsylvania
House : HR95 Click here to see text of Tenth Amendment Resolution (HR95) being introduced by Rep. Sam Rohrer. The proposed resolution states: "[T]he General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Commonwealth, hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." (Here's a link to a terrific video from Pennsylvania state rep. Rohrer where he presents the case for states to affirm the Tenth Amendment in resolutions in as many state legislatures as possible at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB03MEw2_4c.)
Senate :

South Carolina
House : H3509 Concurrent Resolution "TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION." Introduced February 12, 2009.
Senate :

South Dakota
House: HCR1013 "[T]he State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced March 2, 2009. Passed by the House by 51 to 18 on March 3, 2009.
Senate: HCR1013. Same as House resolution. Passed by Senate by 20 to 14 on March 5, 2009.

Tennessee
House: HJR108 "BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced February 18, 2009. Blog by sponsoring Rep. Susan Lynn .
Senate:

Texas
House : HCR50 "RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States...."
Senate : SCR39 "[T]he 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. Introduced March 4, 2009. Interview with SCR39's sponsor.

Virginia
House: HR61 "The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." Introduced February 26, 2009 with 12 sponsors.
Senate:

Washington
House : HJM4009 "NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve: (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." January 30, 2009. ("There are many who want to know the status of HJM 4009. This bill was assigned to the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. As is the case in all committees, the Chair of each committee decides if a bill assigned to it will receive a hearing or not. I have been informed that the Chair of this committee has decided to not give HJM 4009 a hearing. If a bill does not receive a hearing, its progress is stopped and it is essentially dead." Rep Matt Shea, sponsor of HJM4009, as posted on ohrepublic.info on Feb. 21, 2009.)
Senate :

Source: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Conspicuously Illinoistan is not on that list.

Given the political climate of this gulag I would say that just might be a good thing.

They are changing our states motto.

It used to be "Land of Lincoln"

Now it will be "Welkome Komrade, Leave your Kapatilistic Rights at Das Border"

[rushmc 23]

We can only hope that this is the FIRST step toward restoring the constitution.

The up coming Tea Parties are of the same mind set.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,321]

Quote

The up coming Tea Parties are of the same mind set.

Yeah, I think those will be interesting...

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It used to be "Land of Lincoln"

...well since he was born in Kentucky...





We need to get some slogans that Illinois and Ohio can stand behind, with pride....

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It used to be "Land of Lincoln"

...well since he was born in Kentucky...


We need to get some slogans that Illinois and Ohio can stand behind, with pride....

How about: "Ohio - that space between everything that's important."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

How about: "Ohio - that space between everything that's important."

Or "Ohio--we decide who's President, the rest of you only think your vote matters."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[penniless 0]

Quote

Conspicuously Illinoistan is not on that list.

Given the political climate of this gulag I would say that just might be a good thing.

They are changing our states motto.

It used to be "Land of Lincoln"

Now it will be "Welkome Komrade, Leave your Kapatilistic Rights at Das Border"

Why haven't you moved to somewhere more in line with your beliefs? What keeps you in Illinois when you clearly hate it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Or "Ohio--we decide who's President, the rest of you only think your vote matters."

Can't forget the couple others in that position.

Florida - our incompetence makes every election a coin toss.

Michigan - We pick based on if guns or jobs are more important to us right now.

California/NY/Texas - We haven't made a choice since the 80s.

------
We all know the 10th hasn't mean much in a very long time. So now the question is, do we want it back? Should it still be applicable? And how far would you take it?

Voting rights couldn't be trusted to the states, not in the current world where everyone actually has a right to vote.

Gun rights - Freer states couple with open borders reduce the effectiveness of states that remove those rights. This will be true of many of the differences that may evolve between states.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Gun rights - Freer states couple with open borders reduce the effectiveness of states that remove those rights. This will be true of many of the differences that may evolve between states.

Which is why I'm in favor. More open competition between the states is likely to result in some enclaves of greater freedom developing in places like Idaho, Montana or Alaska. I'm sure it will also mean places of lesser freedom, too, but competition is good, and I'm confident that freedom will win out for most people eventually. Even if it doesn't, I can always watch and see where things look most free, and then move there.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

The problem isn't in that people can move to freer states. It's that if you believe that residents of other states (say Illinois or New York) want the more restrictive life, the freer states prevent them from effectively achieving it.

And steering clear of gun matters, what about food regulation? Food is sold across state lines, from agricultural producers. If we replace a national standard with self interested state standards, will we see even more cases of e coli and other contamination?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...what about food regulation? Food is sold across state lines, from agricultural producers. If we replace a national standard with self interested state standards, will we see even more cases of e coli and other contamination?

I think the commerce clause would still govern, actually, and give the feds regulatory power over interstate food shipments.

That said, I don't think it would be a big deal. The market has a way of working that stuff out--and besides I'm one of those "buy organic and local" hippy types, anyway.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That said, I don't think it would be a big deal. The market has a way of working that stuff out--and besides I'm one of those "buy organic and local" hippy types, anyway.

The market values dollars, not lives. The market gave us the Pinto, and the current economy.

[happythoughts 0]

There is only one problem. We have all heard of
the "Golden Rule", but there is a lesser known interpretation.

"He who has the gold, rules."

The Fed govt taxes all the citizens and then gives
part of the money back to the states for roads and schools.

If a state govt refuses to follow a Fed edict, they
stop giving the state funds. No Fed money, no schools - or the myriad of other programs.

There are no states rights until taxes are kept in-state.
The Fed income tax system ensures their control.

[bfilarsky 0]

Quote

There is only one problem. We have all heard of
the "Golden Rule", but there is a lesser known interpretation.

"He who has the gold, rules."

The Fed govt taxes all the citizens and then gives
part of the money back to the states for roads and schools.

If a state govt refuses to follow a Fed edict, they
stop giving the state funds. No Fed money, no schools - or the myriad of other programs.

There are no states rights until taxes are kept in-state.
The Fed income tax system ensures their control.

That's precisely how they got all the states to institute their speed limits.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The market gave us the Pinto, and the current economy.

I'll call bullshit on that.

Government intervention gave us the current economic condition. Look at all the non-market or anti-market actors involved in getting us here.

There's virtually a rotating door between the highest levels of government and the highest levels of business, and the tentacles of government are all over the businesses. The guys who run the top end of the financial sector seem to rotate between wall street and DC, depending on which party is in the White House. When a democrat is president, the republican financiers are running wall street and the democrats are at the Treasury department. Elect a republican president, and they swap places.

The problem is not too little government action. It's _too much_. We've essentially given the power of government and law making (actually administrative rule making, but there's not much functional difference) to business people. That's stupid. Of course they're going to use it to maximize profits.

The way out of this is not to give them _more_ government power and _more_ taxpayer dollars. It's to cut the umbilical cord and make them actually work at their businesses, instead of just using their cozy government contacts to circumvent the markets.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

The market gave us the Pinto, and the current economy.

I'll call bullshit on that.

Government intervention gave us the current economic condition. Look at all the non-market or anti-market actors involved in getting us here.

.

I call BS on THAT. Unregulated derivatives markets gave us the current economic condition. The govt. forced no company to leverage itself they way AIG and the investment banks did.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Unregulated derivatives markets gave us the current economic condition. The govt. forced no company to leverage itself they way AIG and the investment banks did.

I disagree.

The underpinnings of the current financial crisis were in the mortgage markets.

The government:

(a) gave out lots of cheap loans to banks, which encouraged the banks to loan money without proper due diligence
(b) established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and gave them the mission of "promoting home ownership" which further encouraged the giving of loans to people who couldn't repay them

The problem here is that the government was encouraging banks to make loans not on the basis of market economics, but on the basis of government policies encouraging debt-financed home ownership.



Further, and in reference to your points about AIG, the government has

(a) covered the private losses of a private company with taxpayer dollars
(b) in so doing, encouraged further risky behavior by other private entities, because they know there is a "safety net" provided by government bailout so that they don't have to deal with the long term consequences of their actions


The system (created by the same guys who it was supposed to "regulate") is basically a safety net for billionaire speculators. It allows them to make bets on financial markets, knowing that if their bets win, they collect a huge payoff, but if they lose, the government will cover for them.

We're not talking about a failure of market economics here. We're talking about the government intervening to prevent the market from punishing those who deserve punishment.


The solution to these problems is to eliminate the problems themselves--in other words, to stop the government from using taxpayer money to bail out loss making businesses, to stop the government from encouraging risky financial "betting," and to stop the government from pushing banks to make bad loans..

It's the ridiculous to think that since government intervention has created problems, we ought to engage in more of it.

Government intervention is the problem here--it is not the solution.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Government intervention gave us the current economic condition.

Or, more likely, lack thereof.

Quote

There's virtually a rotating door between the highest levels of government and the highest levels of business, and the tentacles of government are all over the businesses.

I tend to see the problem as the tentacles of business undermining government.

Quote

The guys who run the top end of the financial sector seem to rotate between wall street and DC, depending on which party is in the White House. When a democrat is president, the republican financiers are running wall street and the democrats are at the Treasury department. Elect a republican president, and they swap places.

Nice theory, but it implies that the number of jobs in the Treasury department is about the same as the number of finance jobs on Wall Street. I doubt the Treasury department has quite as many positions.

Quote

The problem is not too little government action.

Yes, it is.

Quote

We've essentially given the power of government and law making (actually administrative rule making, but there's not much functional difference) to business people. That's stupid.

Yes, it is. They do stupid things like deregulate markets that ought to be regulated.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The system (created by the same guys who it was supposed to "regulate") is basically a safety net for billionaire speculators.

That makes nice rhetoric, but has little basis in reality. If large banks fail, taxpayers are going to pay the costs one way or another, either via taxes, or via substantially increased unemployment, inflation, decreased wages, etc. It's completely absurd to believe we have the option of not paying.

Quote

It allows them to make bets on unregulated/insufficiently regulated financial markets, knowing that if their bets win, they collect a huge payoff, but if they lose, the government will cover for them.

Consumers are going to pay the cost of such bets, be it through taxes or other ways. The government needs to regulate markets sufficiently to keep such gambles from being taken to start with.

Quote

We're not talking about a failure of market economics here.

Why not? Are we no longer talking about the current financial crisis? If we are, then "a failure of market economics" is what we are talking about.

Quote

We're talking about the government intervening to prevent the market from punishing those who deserve punishment.

Are you suggesting that consumers deserve to be punished? Or do you think that allowing banks to fail will somehow spare consumers from bearing the costs?

Quote

The solution to these problems is to eliminate the problems themselves--in other words, to stop the government from using taxpayer money to bail out loss making businesses, to stop the government from encouraging risky financial "betting," and to stop the government from pushing banks to make bad loans.

Thankfully, those in charge of the Treasury department have a far better understanding of economics than you have demonstrated.

Quote

Government intervention is the problem here--it is not the solution.

Insufficient regulation is the problem here.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

There's virtually a rotating door between the highest levels of government and the highest levels of business, and the tentacles of government are all over the businesses.

I tend to see the problem as the tentacles of business undermining government.

Ok, then how do we stop that? Reducing the government dollars flowing to business seems like the easiest, most logical solution.

The problem with government power is that it will always be used by someone, and that someone will always have something they want to do with it. That thing will never be universally approved.

The solution is to eliminate the government power so that it cannot be abused. We can theorize that we'd be better off if we could just find ourselves a pack of saints to run the government, because they'd never abuse the power. But the facts in the real world tend to show that no one is a saint, and that power is always abused.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Ok, then how do we stop that? Reducing the government dollars flowing to business seems like the easiest, most logical solution.

Eliminate corporate income taxes and tax capital gains as personal income, at personal income tax rates. That helps to eliminate the motives of large corporations to hide income in order to avoid paying taxes, as well as the motives to lobby for special tax breaks.

Of course, that doesn't do anything to mitigate the current crisis. That was caused because there was insufficient regulation to prevent executives from making decisions that provided unsustainable short term profits at the expense of companies' long term interests.

Quote

The problem with government power is that it will always be used by someone, and that someone will always have something they want to do with it. That thing will never be universally approved.

Why is that a problem?

Quote

The solution is to eliminate the government power so that it cannot be abused.

That is no less of an overreaction than committing suicide to cure a hangover. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is rarely a good solution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

The problem with government power is that it will always be used by someone, and that someone will always have something they want to do with it. That thing will never be universally approved.

Why is that a problem?

Because it allows private parties to use government power for private gain.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The problem with government power is that it will always be used by someone, and that someone will always have something they want to do with it. That thing will never be universally approved.

Why is that a problem?

Because it allows private parties to use government power for private gain.

It also allows public servants to do good things for the public. Better to have regulations to help prevent private parties from using government power for private gain than to eliminate government power.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We're not talking about a failure of market economics here. We're talking about the government intervening to prevent the market from punishing those who deserve punishment.

You're talking about two different things, meshed together like mashed potatoes.

The market certainly failed here. It was no different than any other bubble, but thanks to their gross leveraging based on a false understanding of risk, the consequences to the popped bubble are worse than usual.

You were suggesting that the market will correct any inadequecies with food safety regulation. But history shows otherwise, and before any correction would be made, many will suffer, would die.

Then there is the question of should the 'market' fix it, or the governments, or some mix. No one can answer that question effectively, as this is a pretty atypical situation. We do know what got us here. Sorry, it wasn't the Feds. Them giving a loose money supply didn't force IBs to be stupid. The usual suspects - greed and overconfidence - did.