by Rob Natelson
Americans have been dipping into the history of the Founding Era for clues as to how to get our country out of its current mess.
Here’s an instructive story:
In 1783, the Constitution had not yet been written, and Congress was operating under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had no ability to enforce its laws, no power to tax, and could not even meet its obligations to the newly-victorious Continental Army.
Debts kept mounting up. In one humiliating incident, Congress felt compelled to flee from Philadelphia when armed troops demanding their back pay physically surrounded the congressional meeting-place at Independence Hall.
Congress re-convened in Princeton, New Jersey. Once there, the delegates started to talk about how it would be a great idea to have a national capital in a district of its own. But Congress couldn’t agree on where the capital district would be located.
Votes were taken on locations in each of the thirteen states, and they were all voted down. More importantly, Congress was completely broke — it simply had no money to build a capital.
Faced with a crisis, some of the delegates had an idea. If the idea of having one national capital wasn’t feasible, then they would propose building TWO national capitals – one on the Delaware River, and one on the Potomac. And that’s just what Congress voted to do!
The lesson for today: The biggest domestic national crisis, almost every impartial observer agrees, consists of the massive and unfunded entitlement programs sweeping the federal government toward default and bankruptcy.
The second biggest problem is health care costs — rising crazily because the government has replaced the traditional doctor-patient relationship with huge bureaucracies of “third party payers†( government agencies and insurance companies).
The obvious cure for both problems is to find ways to disengage government and return these services to the free market. But both of those solutions are off the congressional agenda. Instead, a majority in Congress wants expansion of entitlements and third-party payments.
Politicians haven’t changed much.
What finally cured the problems of the 1780s was a new Constitution that restructured Congress and clearly defined its powers. It’s becoming more and more clear that it is also going to take some fundamental change to deal with modern congressional irresponsibility — probably a constitutional amendment or two.
Rob Natelson is a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, and runner-up in the 2000 “open primary†for Governor of Montana. His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
No, politicians never change and we shouldn't expect them to either. Thats why we should never trust them with our rights
If the free market works so well, how come most other industrialized nations have a better health care system than us, ran by the government?
First of all, what you consider "better" is subjective. Secondly, in order to make a real comparison, you'll need to provide an example of a country with a similar size and population of the U.S. that has a "better" system. Third, it's a misnomer that many of the countries around the world have a more socialized medical system. the fact is, The US government is more involved in health care than in many industrialized countries. That means, those that are "better" actually have less government involvement, or a more socialized system over a much smaller area. And, most importantly, if we are to have any respect for the constitution and the rule of law, there is no authority from the founders or ratifiers to create a federally-run health care system for the entire country. States are a different matter. But, if the past 8+ years taught us anything, it should have taught us that we need to demand that the federal government follow the "rules" no matter what excuse they'd like to give us.
The term "better" may be defined by a government bureaucrat who by virtue of his or her superiority may declare their beneficence by law.
The Geographical and popular size and diversity of the United States is a major problem for any centralized government to implement any kind of program that works directly with and is on some level depended upon the people of the same. In general the more centralized a government is (and thus the more distant it is from the people it governs) the easier it is for the people at the micro-level to exploit and abuses that government as it becomes much harder for the same one government to manage and deal with all the people.
There is a certain efficiency to scale but that efficiency only goes so far as generally such efficiency presupposes a generally uniform nature of the relevant operations and tendency of the smaller sub units thus allowing effectively parallel(scale able) command operations and management.
This does not work so well when each of the smaller sub units are intelligently, competitively, and independently interacting such as human beings do in regard to what you call “social programs.”
or any thing with the capability and predisposition to make unique choices and/or conclusions in a non-uniform manner, requires specialized responses for interactions and management. This requiring a specialized response by the "manager" which of course takes away from the efficiency gains of size. In fact systems organized to function in such a way tend to be less efficient due to in ability of the central controller to deal with so many different problems individually, and the in effectiveness of their general orders.
So yes The United States Federal government cant do theses things even as effectively, as the smaller(closer to fewer people) European governments.
This is not a failing of the federal government indeed it was known to be the case when our federation was formed, and many different barriers were put into place in order to help prevent the same Central government from ever assuming such a roll, a roll which it was never suited to carry out. Chief among them is the U.S. Constitution and it’s extremely limited and enumerated powers.
Insolently the main problem with centralized government is not its efficiency or lack their of, but rather its dis-proportioned power over the people it rules and thus dis-proportioned capability to bring tyranny upon them.
So to be quite frank with you theses efficiency, corruption, and effectiveness problems should be the least of your concerns when dealing with such a government, as they are far from the most serous of problems to arise out of such a government.
I'll join with Mike's opinion and also add one fundamental question:
Even if it is "better," why should that mean we should be forced to do it? Getting a law degree is better than getting no degree; yet, we don't force people to go to law school. Eating a 2,000 calorie diet is better than eating a 3,500 calorie diet; yet, we do not force a 2,000 calorie diet by legislating one.
So, you should consider that this is not just about what might be arguably "better." It is about whether the government should be able to force its version of "better" on the people. In some regards, government is given authority to do just that, but it has no authority to foist "better" health care on the people.
To chime in here:
Putting aside the economic reasons why socialized healthcare won't work, I have no problem with a group, community, or ward establishing a socialistic community. Of course, as Mike said, this would be a state issue; however, that still does't sit well with me. I believe government should be as local as possible, ideally at the individual level. With that in mind, the most important issues facing people should be as close to them as possible. With just one catch: don't force others into a system they did not sign up for.
This is why I follow the lead of Jefferson and his "wards" plan. The size and scope of our country, I believe, has been a detriment to liberty and republican government. Numerous states can be divided into two's, three's, four's, ect., and major cities can be their own states( All competing which eachother). This is what I believe will solve our crisis.
The costs of living are controlled in a free market by the supply and demand principle. Government has no business enabling a business to ignore the purchasing power of the people. Case in point, the development of drugs at our expense are marketed cheaper abroad, paid for by our tax dollars in the form of aid to developing nations, while we pay more for the drugs and the tax gift on top of it all.. The government should require the prices to be equal at least and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries should be unable to diversify in order to evade market pressures. The same with every large corp. NO aid by government.US based NGOs only and funded by a limited tax deductible contribution. Life being good is an incentive to work toward being better not lowering everyone to an equal point of suffering. If your people live in a desert don't expect us to pay for food and AC because you can't compete economically. Leave, learn or starve like nature teaches.
Politicians haven't changed much– and neither have lawyers, as Mr. Natelson proves when he says that "it's going to take some fundamental change to deal with modern congressional irresponsibility — probably a constitutional amendment or two."
I.e. the solution is simply MORE LAWS– because if the federal officials don't obey the Constitution and laws we have NOW, then they'll obey MORE laws, right?
WRONG. The only law we need is MURPHY'S: i.e. if they CAN disobey laws, they WILL.
The REAL problem is, that while the People of the states solved the Confedeation-problems by DELEGATING autority to the federal government via the Constitution, this has has become SOVEREIGN NATIONAL authority which can never be taken AWAY from it– that's what "the Civil War" was all about, i.e. ensuring that no People of any state could EVER say "no" to the federal government EVER AGAIN.
And ironically, this was done in the name of "government of the people, by the people and for the people–" as in "People's Republic of CHINA," since it was accomplished through pure tyranny and censorship.
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, have got to TAKE BACK our sovereignty as sovereign ruling citizens, of free and independent NATIONS– NOT as SUBJECTS of a SINGLE nation called the "USA."
The USA is thus an illegal "empire-by-proxy," and exists by virtue of distorions of history, taken as fact.
Once we realize the ACTUAL facts– i.e. that the states ARE popularly sovereign nations, and that the USA is simply a FEDERAL REPUBLIC of them, with no power OVER them– then by law, this national sovereignty MUST be recognized and accorded those states and the People thereof.
Prof. Natelson, are you willing to go on record as saying that every state was a sovereign nation even after ratifyign the Constitution? It seems that no professor of law is willing to do this, despite glaring evidence; and I can only attribute this uniform unreasoning lockstep, to personal and professional cowardice on the part of all who conform to this illegitimate federal policy which has held professional sway since the Lincoln Administration.
I find this to be a disgrace, since such a position entails a responsibility to the People, to the faith of one's convictions– not one's own personal advancement. All persons in such positions, should either stand up– or stand down.