Being unconstitutional is basically immoral, because it amounts to the elected government breaking an oath.
Not only that, it's usurpation. Legitimate powers can only derive from the delegation of rights by the people. There is no action that is immoral for an individual, that becomes moral when done by a group. National defense is moral because it is a delegation of our right to self defense. "Redistribution" is immoral, because nobody has a right to plunder another person's property.
Government regulation enforces the monopolies' power.
Exactly. Also, short of outright monopolies, government regulation tends to drive consolidation. We're seeing a wave of it right now in the banking industry, where the privileged banks get to take over other banks without even going through the bankruptcy courts.
Ok, but how do you determine what these "rights" are.
We have a written constitution, and despite our government's habit of ignoring it whenever they find it convenient to do so, it is nevertheless the entirety of the legal basis for the government's authority.
Would you rather hand the budgetary power over to the courts or to some dictator?
I'd say it's appropriate for the power to remain with the congress. We need to effect a major housecleaning, of course.
Yes, but then there is plenty of scope for this sort of spending to fall under the general welfare clause, and thus be permissible.
Actually, this sort of spending violates general welfare, because it takes money from everyone to give it to a few.
I expect that congress would have little trouble passing a constitutional amendment the next day to explicitly grant the power for spending along these lines;
Then let them do so. By simply ignoring the constitution, the government abandons its legitimacy.
For all intents and purposes it is constitutional.
"Natural monopoly" was never anything more than AT&T bell system propaganda. They used the term to pretend that their government-granted monopoly need not be questioned.
The question is, is this beyond the powers granted to the government?
Yes, obviously. You can confirm this by perusing the constitution. You will not find any authority given to the federal government to spend tax money on promoting technology other than to grant patents.
Ironically, monopolies are exactly what would result if contemporary libertarians were to succeed at achieving the "free" markets they desire.
Monopolies are created by governments. In a free market, the free flow of capital allows the emergence of new competition whenever an existing business is inefficient.
the commerce clause does not mean the government can stop you from growing your own corn on your own property for your own consumption.
That's probably the most abused part of the constitution today. The purpose of the commerce clause was to empower the federal government to keep the states from setting up barriers to interstate trade, not to provide a pretext to interfere with anything and everything we do.
The "general welfare" means spending that benefits everyone (eg, funding the courts), not giving money to specific companies, industries, or groups of people at the expense of others.
Government is complicit, but it is the oil producers who are pulling the strings
My position is that government shouldn't have the power that the oil companies use. Keep in mind that consolidation of oil producers into a few large companies has largely been driven by government policy. The more regulated an industry is, the greater advantage there is to the largest companies in that business.
The best covered wagon CEO on earth couldn't figure out a way to beat the Model T.
Actually, the best wagon makers did a pretty good business building car bodies. Fisher Body (now a part of GM) started out making wagons in the late 1800s, for example.
Taxation is moral only to the extent that the revenues raised are used to secure our rights. As soon as government steps beyond the powers that we have granted to it, it is immoral.
Our alternative strategy of reinterpreting the Constitution to read "Congress can pass any bill which, in their own opinion, promotes the general welfare" has had a history of backfiring badly.
If they actually confined themselves to the general welfare, we'd have far less of a problem.
So your argument is against all taxation and government spending?
There are a couple of legitimate functions of the government, and the proper role of taxation is to fund those activities. These include providing for the national defense (not the maintenance of an empire), criminal justice (not warehousing millions of people for profit), and adjudicating disputes.
We created our government to secure our freedom, not to command our obedience.
Isn't most of the tax income coming from the top 1% anyway?
Not most, but a disproportionate amount. Most of the tax money has always com from the middle class, since they have enough money to be worth plundering, but they aren't as sophisticated in buying favors as rich people are.
As P. J. O'Rourke said, giving money to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to adolescents. The proper role for taxation is to raise the funds necessary for the government's constitutional powers, not to manipulate the behavior of the public.
It seems to have escaped your notice that OPEC is a group of governments. I have never disputed that governments manipulate markets. It's wrong for the OPEC governments to do so, and it's wrong for the US government to do likewise.
Provided you can include investing in the economy among the roles that the US government has then this would seem to be a very "moral" use of taxpayer money.
What you fail to take into account, is that every dollar the government "invests" is forcible extracted from someone who earned it. By trying to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace, the government distorts the market and creates inefficiencies.
Going to war on my dime to the tune of $1 trillion+? That's immoral.
Yes, that's immoral too.
Lending half a billion dollars to a company that's jumpstarting the electrification of transportation? Well that's just good sense right there.
You were doing so well, and then you went off into the weeds.
If electric cars (or ethanol, or any other possible replacement for gasoline-powered vehicles) makes sense, it won't take tax money to get it into widespread use.
Slashdot Mirror
Deregulation fucked the energy market, and the financial market.
Where did you get the bizarre idea that either the energy or the financial markets were deregulated?
-jcr
Being unconstitutional is basically immoral, because it amounts to the elected government breaking an oath.
Not only that, it's usurpation. Legitimate powers can only derive from the delegation of rights by the people. There is no action that is immoral for an individual, that becomes moral when done by a group. National defense is moral because it is a delegation of our right to self defense. "Redistribution" is immoral, because nobody has a right to plunder another person's property.
-jcr
Government regulation enforces the monopolies' power.
Exactly. Also, short of outright monopolies, government regulation tends to drive consolidation. We're seeing a wave of it right now in the banking industry, where the privileged banks get to take over other banks without even going through the bankruptcy courts.
-jcr
Ok, but how do you determine what these "rights" are.
We have a written constitution, and despite our government's habit of ignoring it whenever they find it convenient to do so, it is nevertheless the entirety of the legal basis for the government's authority.
Would you rather hand the budgetary power over to the courts or to some dictator?
I'd say it's appropriate for the power to remain with the congress. We need to effect a major housecleaning, of course.
-jcr
Yes, but then there is plenty of scope for this sort of spending to fall under the general welfare clause, and thus be permissible.
Actually, this sort of spending violates general welfare, because it takes money from everyone to give it to a few.
I expect that congress would have little trouble passing a constitutional amendment the next day to explicitly grant the power for spending along these lines;
Then let them do so. By simply ignoring the constitution, the government abandons its legitimacy.
For all intents and purposes it is constitutional.
Nope. See above.
-jcr
"Natural monopoly" was never anything more than AT&T bell system propaganda. They used the term to pretend that their government-granted monopoly need not be questioned.
-jcr
The question is, is this beyond the powers granted to the government?
Yes, obviously. You can confirm this by perusing the constitution. You will not find any authority given to the federal government to spend tax money on promoting technology other than to grant patents.
-jcr
Ironically, monopolies are exactly what would result if contemporary libertarians were to succeed at achieving the "free" markets they desire.
Monopolies are created by governments. In a free market, the free flow of capital allows the emergence of new competition whenever an existing business is inefficient.
-jcr
Contemporary libertarians remind me of children who never learned to share.
You sound to me like someone whose deepest desire is to wield power over others. It doesn't get any more selfish than that.
-jcr
the commerce clause does not mean the government can stop you from growing your own corn on your own property for your own consumption.
That's probably the most abused part of the constitution today. The purpose of the commerce clause was to empower the federal government to keep the states from setting up barriers to interstate trade, not to provide a pretext to interfere with anything and everything we do.
-jcr
The "general welfare" means spending that benefits everyone (eg, funding the courts), not giving money to specific companies, industries, or groups of people at the expense of others.
-jcr
Government is complicit, but it is the oil producers who are pulling the strings
My position is that government shouldn't have the power that the oil companies use. Keep in mind that consolidation of oil producers into a few large companies has largely been driven by government policy. The more regulated an industry is, the greater advantage there is to the largest companies in that business.
-jcr
The best covered wagon CEO on earth couldn't figure out a way to beat the Model T.
Actually, the best wagon makers did a pretty good business building car bodies. Fisher Body (now a part of GM) started out making wagons in the late 1800s, for example.
-jcr
So you're saying that taxation is immoral?
Taxation is moral only to the extent that the revenues raised are used to secure our rights. As soon as government steps beyond the powers that we have granted to it, it is immoral.
-jcr
Our alternative strategy of reinterpreting the Constitution to read "Congress can pass any bill which, in their own opinion, promotes the general welfare" has had a history of backfiring badly.
If they actually confined themselves to the general welfare, we'd have far less of a problem.
-jcr
So your argument is against all taxation and government spending?
There are a couple of legitimate functions of the government, and the proper role of taxation is to fund those activities. These include providing for the national defense (not the maintenance of an empire), criminal justice (not warehousing millions of people for profit), and adjudicating disputes.
We created our government to secure our freedom, not to command our obedience.
-jcr
Isn't most of the tax income coming from the top 1% anyway?
Not most, but a disproportionate amount. Most of the tax money has always com from the middle class, since they have enough money to be worth plundering, but they aren't as sophisticated in buying favors as rich people are.
-jcr
We should raise the gas taxes.
NO.
As P. J. O'Rourke said, giving money to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to adolescents. The proper role for taxation is to raise the funds necessary for the government's constitutional powers, not to manipulate the behavior of the public.
-jcr
It seems to have escaped your notice that OPEC is a group of governments. I have never disputed that governments manipulate markets. It's wrong for the OPEC governments to do so, and it's wrong for the US government to do likewise.
-jcr
The market is manipulated by interests to make investing in renewable energy and electric vehicles infeasible
Who do you think does that manipulation, sunshine? Government is a problem masquerading as its own solution.
-jcr
Provided you can include investing in the economy among the roles that the US government has then this would seem to be a very "moral" use of taxpayer money.
What you fail to take into account, is that every dollar the government "invests" is forcible extracted from someone who earned it. By trying to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace, the government distorts the market and creates inefficiencies.
-jcr
Going to war on my dime to the tune of $1 trillion+? That's immoral.
Yes, that's immoral too.
Lending half a billion dollars to a company that's jumpstarting the electrification of transportation? Well that's just good sense right there.
You were doing so well, and then you went off into the weeds.
If electric cars (or ethanol, or any other possible replacement for gasoline-powered vehicles) makes sense, it won't take tax money to get it into widespread use.
-jcr
I wouldn't say that investing tax payer money is unconstitutional in the least.
Try reading the document sometime.
It's done all the time.
So are many other unconstitutional activities.
-jcr
immoral? Give some damn reasoning.
If you can't figure out for yourself that taking money by force is immoral, I really don't think I can help you.
-jcr
i personally believe that it is a good investment even if the car costs 50k.
Then by all means, invest your money if you think it's worth doing. Using tax money for this is immoral, not to mention unconstitutional.
-jcr