Tuesday, March 24, 2009
It is helpful to trace back the reasoning that says that since the non-bank firms participate in the economy they should be as subject to seizure as banks. Going forward it will lead to the power to seize any business or individual. After all they participate in the economy too, don't they? The attitude that taking a government benefit, even if coerced, justifies government regulation starts with the exploitation of the Elastic and the Commerce clauses to justify Federal regulation in what would under the Constitution be considered State functions. The idea that the people are subjects who a duty to the beneficent government was advanced by the government expansion in Health Care. At first this happened in the State or local realm where, as with education, there was no constitutional issue. More recently the Federal authorities assumed a role in these fields and the concurring right to regulate effected conduct. The first efforts were naturally on an issue that was trivial. The justification for seat-belt laws was that accident victims would end up in government supported hospitals and therefor there was a public interest in forcing people to wear seat-belts in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayers. For the record if I am driving and you get in my car you will buckle up. Real purists might want to push this line of thought back to the fluoridation of water. The key issue here is that the Federal government has used this logic to insert itself into regulating and now potentially seizing any form of activity or individual anywhere.