The LockeSmith Blog

The Principle

History has deemed the early part of the 20th century in America as the Progressive Era and the amendments made to the Constitution during that time as the Progressive Amendments. These labels are rubbish. The so-called “Progressive” Era was in fact quite the opposite. Of the four amendments of the Progressive Era, only one, the 19th, which gave women the right to vote represented a decision consistent with the liberty whose creation was the great progressive accomplishment of the creation of this country. The other three represent a regression.

The 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments take us in spirit back to before the progress made by our Constitution. They deny the liberty on which our nation was founded and remove the institutional safeguards of this liberty. This is no progress! The founding of our nation was a first. We were an example of liberal democracy for the entire world to see. We were a showcase of freedom, and a beautiful institutional model for insuring that freedom would remain. Over the past 200 years, however, we have slowly and methodically begun to destroy every institutional safeguard of freedom we have, abandoning the progress made by our Constitution.

We were smart enough to realize our mistake with the 18th Amendment, which enacted prohibition, and our 21st Amendment repealed it. My fear, however, is that the reason we repealed this amendment, and the reason we cringe at it today is not because of the violation of liberty it represents, but because it just didn’t work, or perhaps because we think there’s nothing wrong with drinking. It’s not the violation of liberty that scares people, it’s that this violation of liberty didn’t work, or it’s that drinking isn’t a big deal. And that is backwards.

The 16th and 17th Amendments, however, we never had the good sense to repeal. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to enact an income tax without apportioning it among the states, and the 17th allows for the direct election of senators. Together, these destroy a key safeguard of our liberty. The great progressive accomplishment of our Constitution was the creation of a limited, federal government, in which splitting powers among different branches, and splitting sovereignty among state governments and the federal government insured that too much power would never be in one set of hands. The Regressive Amendments, as I cannot but call them, abandoned this scheme. They set the stage for a larger, more central government by abandoning key safeguards of state sovereignty. The national income tax and the direct election of senators removed some of the key ways states could impact the federal system.

So-called Progressives like to think that these changes make the federal government more directly accountable to the people. Perhaps it did this in some sense, but it did so at the expense of giving the federal government more direct control over the people. And this abandons the great progress of our Constitutional federalism. The great progressive accomplishment of our Constitution was its assurance of a highly limited government, which stemmed from an understanding that government can’t and shouldn’t solve all society’s problems. But we have long since reverted to a pre-liberal view of government. And we see the fruit of this today in our gigantic, out-of-control government. The great lie of the Twentieth century is that government is the solution to all our problems. From the so-called Progressive Era, through the New-Deal, and Great Society we’ve been told that this vision of government as our savior is new and better than what came before. But 20th century socialism (whether it names itself such or not) is not as different as it likes to think from the absolutism that preceded classical liberalism. We used to be foolish enough to think that kings had a divine right to power over their subjects, and thus the duty to care for them as their children. Then we grew up and realized that individuals are responsible to live their lives, and government exists to ensure they can do so without interference from others. The Progressive of the 20th century is in fact an inane and backwards Regressivism which tells us once again of a sort of divine right, this time of the state, to direct our lives.

So, all that said, over my next couple of posts I plan to examine in depth the particular problems created by the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments. So if you feel like in this post I haven’t really adequately delved into the problems created by these Amendments, then stay tuned for more.

Posted by Ben at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

First, let me apologize for my extended absence. The last few weeks have been particularly busy in my professional calendar, and I fear it left no time for the joy of blogging. If it’s any consolation, I’ve missed the opportunity to think and write on a regular basis. I guess you could call it a “blogger’s high,” and I’ve certainly been in withdrawal. It should be no surprise—the love of thinking systematically and communicating thoughts to others is what drew me to this line of work in the first place. And I brought you these flowers…

In the stolen moments in my recent schedule, I have had a few ideas I’d like to share. I’d like to propose at least two reforms to our government. Of course, I’d really like to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments (Ben Bryan has come up with a particularly apropos sobriquet for them, but I’ll let him introduce it). But short of that, here are two ideas.

First, let’s make Congress subject to a limited form of tort law. A tort, of course, is a legal wrong, something done to another for which one owes them compensation to make them whole. (Torte, on the other hand, is a delightful afternoon treat with tea or coffee.) Obviously, it can’t be regular, run-of-the-mill tort law. The entire purpose of forming a government is for it to be able to harm some of us (or our rights) when necessary. The problem comes with government doing it when it isn’t necessary. So I propose that we define a new type of tort, one which only legislatures may commit (and which legislatures would have to define by statute, so I’m obviously tilting at windmills).

The tort is precisely the concern expressed above—government stepping over its proper boundaries. When a legislature passes a law that is later held to have been ultra vires (beyond their powers) or contrary to the relevant constitution, those upon whose rights they infringed should be able to sue for compensatory damages, and the court should be free to impose punitive damages to discourage the behavior in the future.

I can hear the legislator objecting now: “But that will have a chilling effect on our ability to pass laws, to try to find solutions to problems!” Precisely! You make it sound as if that were something objectionable. Where is the downside to forcing a legislature to think about the consequences of its laws, rather than letting them throw laws up to see if they stick? To discouraging them, even at the margin, from passing a law if it’s not necessary? Let’s harness the power of frivolous lawsuits to the public’s benefit—call it the “invisible ambulance chaser.”

Second, let’s amend the 27th Amendment. Currently, it states that no increase in compensation for Senators or Representatives can take effect until an election of representatives has intervened. I propose that we not allow the salaries of elected officials to rise from their first salary at that level (local, state, federal). Incumbents know that they face only a slim chance of not receiving the raise for which they vote, so although Madison’s youngest amendment has the right idea in terms of structuring incentives, the terms of elected officials have become too secure to provide the same carrot.

This will certainly encourage a great deal more turnover in elected officials. I can’t imagine Robert Byrd finding it as worth his while to pester us for the same salary he had lo, these many years ago. Of course, legislators would just as certainly find a way around this—suddenly, the public would be footing much more of their bills in terms of services, rather than salary. But I think we can word the change so as to prevent that (for example, by forbidding compensation other than salary). Will current representatives pass massive salary increases for the people who replace them? I find it difficult to believe that they would increase it by more than they found reasonable for their survival. Perhaps parties would come to coordinate the passage of raises and elections of officers, but at the very least, we would see some newer blood more often. And save a little money at the expense of those wasting ours.

But then again, maybe I’m just cranky because I haven’t had my turkey yet…

Posted by Nathan Griffith at 01:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For those who have not yet heard the news via Belmont's main website, the Commission on Presidential Debates has chosen Belmont University to host the Town Hall Presidential Debate on October 7, 2008.

Nope, I didn't stutter, and that is what you think it is. We're hosting a presidential debate! I suppose the advantage of a blog in this context is to provide the immediate reaction, rather than calm and reasoned reflection. And I have to tell you, this news has sent a tremor through campus. I'm not sure how we compare to previous sites in terms of campus population, etc., but I have to imagine this represents quite a coup for our administration. I know it represents one heck of an opportunity for fostering political debate on campus--among students, not just among candidates. Actually, probably more the former than the latter; when's the last time a debate actually featured debating?

At any rate, we are all extremely excited, and we can't wait to find out how we will be allowed to participate! Expect to hear more here!

Posted by Nathan Griffith at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An alumnus of Belmont's MBA program, entrepreneur Charles Hagood, provides lean management consulting for the healthcare industry through his company Healthcare Performance Partners. While currently working in Denmark he wrote this at his blog site:

...I can't help but note that the majority of healthcare issues for the most part will not be solved via socialized medicine and certainly not with the government getting more involved to "help us". The answer is to eliminate waste, reduce unevenness, and reduce overburden.

Amen.

We are now facing a false choice in the US. One choice is to continue the current system of rent seeking by the healthcare industry. K Street in Washington, DC is awash with lobbyists and their money funded by various healthcare and corporate interests. The healthcare mess we now have is the outcome of decades of duplicitous acts between large public corporations, various healthcare interest groups, and politicians. Through a labyrinth of tax and employment laws we have created over the years an incredibly inefficient system that has pushed costs up at a pace that far exceeds any normal inflationary increases.

As an alternative, the other choice we are being presented with is the socialized model, which has gained tremendous steam of late thanks to the left and the mainstream media. If you want to see where complete government control of healthcare takes us, just ask Canada, or Great Britain, or any of the long list of socialist democracies that have taken that path. Not only are their systems inefficient, but theirs are also increasingly ineffective.

The third choice is to let the free market once again drive healthcare. Sadly, this alternative is getting precious little attention right now. We live in an age where the Republicans are taking us on a gentle stroll to socialism, while the Democrats offer the alternative of a full speed sprint.

If we put the "free" back into health care markets, we will see a system that will seek out improved outcomes through more efficient means. That is what free markets demand. How do we do this?

The first step is to uncouple health insurance from the tax code. This will take employers out of the loop. Health care is not a gift from our employers. It is part of what they pay us. By enmeshing healthcare in the tax code and employment law all we get is more bureaucracy and waste within American business and within our government. We have suckered Americans into believing that the market will take those dollars away if the government does not enforce the current system. The truth is that free markets will pay us the same. But now more of the dollars will come directly to us and not be redistributed through the human resource systems of corporations, to the bloated bureaucracy of health insurance companies, all under the watchful eye of our government. That is where much of healthcare money gets wasted.

We also need to deregulate health insurance. Let market forces work. We will see a return to the system we had 40 years ago where we had high deductible plans that covered only "major medical" events. We will have more income to pay for routine healthcare ourselves, which will guide that industry to more efficient and more effective outcomes through market pressures.

In short, get healthcare out of the tax code and employment law, and get government out of micro-managing health insurance. This is a simple prescription, but one that no politicians seem to have the courage nor vision to support.

Posted by Jeff Cornwall at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)