re: #257 PT Barnum

The state is made for all of us, and to the point that we decide to share the responsibilites and priveleges of being part of the state, we assign portions of our authority to the state.

The determination of what those portions are is the purpose of elections and politics, or violent coups, in some nations.

The fact that our republic has sustained for over 200 years under such a model is less a tribute to those who wished not to assign any authority to the state as a tribute to those who willingly accepted the results of elections which made a determination they did not agree with.

The point of the US constitution, as opposed to lots of other systems, is that everything not specifically given to the federal govt is reserved to the states, or to the people (Bill of Rights). It truly is a system of negative freedoms, which is what upsets Mr. Obama so much, since he is for a much more activist system which could actively “help” you as often as it wanted.

From the way you put things, I suspect you would agree - we should agree upon what we would have the state do, regardless of whether it conforms to the constitution and its prohibitions on practically all activities of this kind.

The history of the erosion of constitutional prohibitions has assumed a great deal of importance, as the results of ignoring such prohibitions have now become really serious, and often quite negative, despite all the good intentions. (See $46T in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, for starters.)

When the income tax was introduced, the constitution was amended to permit it, as it should have been. When social security and the host of other programs promulgated under FDR were introduced, this nicety was not observed. This had two outcomes: some laws were indeed ruled unconstitutional, but the others, like social security, became the basis for essentially unlimited government, in theory. Since the preamble to the constitution talks of promoting the general welfare, someone of the FDR persuasion can justify the govt doing just about anything.

And indeed that is exactly what is happening. All a lot of politicians talk about now is how much more they’re going to do for you (without of course taking into consideration of what they’re going to do to you in the process).

A lot of religious people have turned to outlandish leaders simply because they feel that their morals have been severely compromised in a way that’s none of the govt’s business. The police power of the state compels school attendance, and when their children are there they unexpectedly get complete AIDS awareness instruction in the first grade, for instance. Or free condoms in high school, with no parental involvement, as a matter of principle.

So I think #4 refers specifically to this problem they have with such over-involvement of govt by saying that 1) the family is more important, and 2) that the govt should not be involved in this kind of thing.

The larger point is that there is too much going on that we have never voted for. The Hayek explanation is that the legislature is asked to empower “czars”, “expert panels” and the like, who then act without further review. This is indeed happening in education, but also more and more in the economy as well.

And I agree with #176, in that such subjects are complicated, as well as with the comments to the effect that not everyone is able to make the arguments for their position with systematic argument.

However, the idea that “we” can do anything we want with the state is something that is clearly against the intent of our constitution. Since I’m a great admirer of our constitution, I tend to agree that what the gov’t does should not be just whatever the current bunch of elected officials thinks would be really cool.