Limited Government

01 February 2004 | Me

[BackInBlack]

I'm with you on a lot of that -- agriculture, education, all sorts of things can be eliminated from federal jurisfiction. But I'd keep things like the Department of Transportation, since that genuinely involves interstate commerce.

[BackInBlack]

One more thing: how about just eliminating NASA? What good does it do human beings? And who gave the federal government the authority to explore space?

[A.J.Armitage]

Sell the US Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, all museums, all galleries, and the National Zoo.

Should Congress be the only legislative body in the world without a library?

[Voice in your head]

"...I'd keep things like the Department of Transportation, since that genuinely involves interstate commerce."

The internet genuinely involves interstate commerce, too. Should we establish a Department of the Internet? What is it about genuine involvement that justifies a continuing role for the government?

One more thing: how about just eliminating NASA? What good does it do human beings? And who gave the federal government the authority to explore space?

NASA is a fine tool for research and development of space, which is now part of our national defense strategy. It will benefit human beings, because humans benefit by the advancement of American interests, but that is not why we should or should not keep NASA.

[Voice in your head]

"Should Congress be the only legislative body in the world without a library?"

Only if the other legislative bodies in the world choose to have libraries.

[BackInBlack]

"The internet genuinely involves interstate commerce, too. Should we establish a Department of the Internet?"

No, but we could have an office that deals with internet issues in the Department of Commerce.

"What is it about genuine involvement that justifies a continuing role for the government?"

It's not just "genuine involvement" -- it's genuine involvement in things that the Constitution has mandated that the federal government regulate. If the Constitution says the feds have to deal with interstate commerce -- as it does -- then failing to do so would be to reject the rule of law in favor of a flexible, activist view of the Constitution.

"NASA is a fine tool for research and development of space, which is now part of our national defense strategy. It will benefit human beings, because humans benefit by the advancement of American interests, but that is not why we should or should not keep NASA."

Then what is the reason? As I said, the federal government was never authorized to explore space. If we want to conduct research on defense, we don't have to do it under the auspices of an organization with an extra-Constitutional mission.

[Voice in your head]

"No, but we could have an office that deals with internet issues in the Department of Commerce."

Yes, but should we? Likewise, should we have a Department of Commerce? I do not think so.

"It's not just "genuine involvement" -- it's genuine involvement in things that the Constitution has mandated that the federal government regulate. If the Constitution says the feds have to deal with interstate commerce -- as it does -- then failing to do so would be to reject the rule of law in favor of a flexible, activist view of the Constitution."

The government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not the duty.

"The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."

I think that government should minimize its regulation of interstate commerce, because the marketplace can perform better without social engineering and government bureaucracy clogging the gears of progress. I think that government should focus its efforts on protecting our rights, especially from threats against our right to life from current and potential foreign enemies.

"Then what is the reason? As I said, the federal government was never authorized to explore space."

I could have worded what I wrote a little better. The reason is not the second sentence: "It will benefit human beings, because humans benefit by the advancement of American interests, but that is not why we should or should not keep NASA." The reason is the first sentence: "NASA is a fine tool for research and development of space, which is now part of our national defense strategy." That is not a justification for the creation of NASA. But, it is a justification for retaining a trimmed-down version of it, if it is put under control of the military.

"If we want to conduct research on defense, we don't have to do it under the auspices of an organization with an extra-Constitutional mission."

And that is kind of what I am addressing in the sentence above. Just as an interstate highway system is kosher, due to the power to regulate interstate commerce, military-related research and development is kosher due to the power to provide for the common defense.

[Celtman]

Years ago, I had a book titled "The Liberty Amendment', which has a pretty complete plan for paring the federal government down to a size where the income tax would not be needed. Obviously it never went anywhere, but it still seems like a good idea.

[B4Ranch]

Have you read Molon Labe?

[Celtman]

Have you read Molon Labe?

      No, I haven't.  But after checking into it, it sounds like it would be interesting.

[B4Ranch]

It is interesting because it shows what's possible.