Crisis…the new (bloodless?) revolution…

I have read a few articles recently about the ’30s and the current economic landscape that spoke about the government using a “crisis” as a tool to shove all the government we can’t stand down our throats.  Consider us the sick children and the government in the role of grandma and it’s programs are castor oil.  And lately I have noticed a disturbing trend in our elected and appointed officials:

“Never waste a good crisis” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking to the European Parliment in Brussels

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” -chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking to a group of WSJ reporters

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely, to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity” -President Obama, in his State of the Union address.

Now I’m not one to argue the point with such distinguished luminaries; when your back is to the proverbial wall it tends to focus your efforts on what must be done to solve the problem.  In that regard a crisis is an opportunity to chart a new path.   But it’s the new path that I fear the most from this group.

So what does they mean when they suggest we shouldn’t let this opportunity of crisis pass us by?  Their words suggest that America has been bad and must get in line with the rest of the world.  Unfortunately most of the rest of the world is hurting as well, so I don’t know what grand example we are to follow there.  But since unregulated greed has been seen as the casuative factor to the crisis, how can their comments be taken as anything other than a reorganization of our government, economic, and social structure? This is troubling, and should be, as our government, economic, and social structure were created by our Founding Fathers with explicit intentions and warnings about allowing the government to do such things.

It sounds of paranoia and hyperbole to say that the country’s foundations are in jeopardy here and yet, what other interpretation can one have to such sentiments?  No one is calling for a “tweaking of the system” that we have in place, or better yet, riding out the inevitable waves caused by our many varied boats.  Government is being cast as the Savior here.  As Obama said in his Inaugural Speech: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”.  Unfortunately a “working” government IS bigger government and will be more in control of our lives because it simply knows no other way.  History teaches us no other lessons.  And to assume that we have reached a point in human history where these truths no longer hold is the inevitable folly of youthful thinking.  Globalization and free thought has only increased the pace at which we believe that we are some how different or better than our ancestors at spotting tyranny and oppression before it’s too late.

Freedom under government purview is not freedom, no matter how benevolent you think that government is.  As Jefferson said: “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

– James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Eminent domain abuse

This is a topic that evokes the worst fears of someone who believes the government only exists to secure the rights of it’s people: Eminent domain.  Yes, our Founding Fathers did believe in eminent domain but they attempted to limit the power by ascribing that it could only be done “for public use” and with “just compensation”.  And by now we all know what the KELO decision has done to that ideal.

I suppose it’s reasonable, that in the interest of a society as a whole, the government should have the ability to designate land that is necessary for public services; utilities such as sewer and power, transit such as trains and roadways, and national parks or wildlife preserves.  But the whole ability runs counter to the rather libertarian idealism that we were Founded with.  It says that ultimately the government has control over your property because it’s not really yours.  The government is just renting it to you (see property tax) and can revoke it at any time according to it’s pleasure.  It sticks in my limited government craw, but it is what it is.

The law is written in such a way that it’s just screaming for Court interpretation on every single case; rightly so as there is no overall right and wrong–if you will accept that it’s the abuse of eminent domain (as opposed to the idea of whether there should be eminent domain).  And it’s a law that is ripe for abuse. Many state governments have redefined their eminent domain abilities in the wake of KELO and many more should be doing so (I urge you to check your own state’s reaction accordingly).  The Court system–unless you like activist judges who write laws from the bench–is supposed to be incapable of doing anything more that interpreting hundreds of years of case law, and a lot of that has sided with the government’s virtually unlimited ability to take away (until KELO which effectively rewrote the 5th Amendment’s “public use”).  The state legislators need to step in to clarify law so new case law can be established.  We must make sure that they do so as their employers.

And I’m generally all for the wisdom of the sitting judges on a supreme court; whether state or federal, but there’s something to be said about a jury of your peers helping to decide if the government has overstepped itself.  That’s notably absent at the highest levels in these cases.  It makes me wonder what the Supreme Court was thinking on KELO as most of them are likely well-off property owners.  My rule of thumb for any good law is whether you would like it to apply to yourself.

So what is “just compensation”?  In an ideal system the government and the property owners work together for a mutually amicable solution.  In the system we actually have, it would be nice if the parties involved started off with that thought.  I suspect the first notice a property owner gets from the government about the issue is an eviction notice.  That’s always a great conversation starter.  It would also be nice if the public servants in the government realize that they are just that.  No one should enter into the situation with the attitude “I’m going to take away your property and there’s nothing you can do about it”.  Even if it might be largely true, it’s still a bad start.  I would like to see an honest effort to treat the property owner as a partner in the endeavor.  Cut him in for a piece of the action, if you will, and I bet you’ll see a lot of cooperation.  It’s just unreasonable to tell a person who brought a property for $100,000 and could sell it for $200,000 on the open market that you’re going to force him to sell it to you for $175,000 and then you’re going to turn around and make $1,000,000 in taxes annually.  Give him .5% a year of the tax take.  Talk about redistributing wealth!

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
–James Madison

Sufficient Virtue and Intelligence

I recall a colleague of ours mentioning the following. Given the circumstances of the 2008 United States Presidential election, how do you feel about its accuracy or impact?

“I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical check, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men, so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

~ President James Madison