tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8645067195660392680..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: It amazes me...Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-7199004519269522812010-12-16T08:59:33.961-05:002010-12-16T08:59:33.961-05:00JoeMac -
You don't give me much to work with, ...JoeMac -<br />You don't give me much to work with, but no - it was not rewritten in the 1930s, and it was always understood to empower Congress to provide for the general welfare. It was used for such a purpose from the very beginning, primarily with the development of infrastructure. The Constitutional concerns at the time were whether infrastructure could be build without state permission, and bickering over whether certain infrastructure plans were not sufficiently "general". These are reasonable questions to hash out, but it was never questioned whether the federal government could appropriate money to provide for the general welfare. We can see this in very early discussions of national universities too.<br /><br />I think what happened in the 1930s was a heated discussion over what falls under "general welfare". This is a vague term, and I think we have every reason to believe that the founders intended it to be flexible. Again - its legitimate to hash out these questions.<br /><br />Not all libertarians, but many <i>are</i> proposing rewriting the fundamental meaning of this clause. Many argue that there is no power to provide for the general welfare at all, and that appropriations can only be made for the other enumerated powers. There is absolutely zero constitutional ground for this.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-51400355443010732602010-12-16T08:44:21.571-05:002010-12-16T08:44:21.571-05:00I have no idea what your point is about the genera...I have no idea what your point is about the general welfare clause. Nothing is being rewritten. The narrow interpretation is the one that existed for 150 years before the 1930s. The way in which it is viewed today is in fact the "rewritten" version. Progressives rewrote it in the 30s and 40s. We want to go back to the way it was before the federal government was given nearly unlimited power.JoeMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650518988624821388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-80463024533431307112010-12-16T07:19:10.896-05:002010-12-16T07:19:10.896-05:00Here are the three things that come to my mind.
1...Here are the three things that come to my mind.<br /><br />1) There have been large dominant Liberal Parties in every western European country from Netherlands to Germany (Westerwelle's FDP) to Denmark and whatnot. There was an once-dominant Liberal Party in the UK. Every one of these Liberal Parties failed to do a single liberal thing. Some Liberals support moral policing, social engineering policies, police state measures, and defense hawkishness. Yes, liberals are very pervasive in the Western world. No, none of them has been liberal in practice for the past hundred years. The best example is the British Liberal Party which just stood by while Britain implemented disastrous price and wage controls in the postwar period and kept pushing for complete nationalisation...some of these policies were not even dared by social democracies like Austria and Scandinavian countries to the extent that Britain did.<br /><br />2) The largest liberalisations have always occured under social democratic or progressive parties, not because they wanted it, but because they had no choice. That's what amazes me about Indian intellectuals who complain about "neoliberalism". Liberalisation never took place under orders of liberals or big business, but only under desperate social democrats in crisis. Carter deregulated and privatized America heavily. So did Helmut Schmidt in Germany. Netherlands followed a policy of fiscal consolidation that will never be dared in America. Et cetera<br /><br />3) American liberals detest Washington liberals, and the Washington liberal is often classed as another problematic kind of statesman. LRC, Mises.Org, Antiwar, and such fronts have nothing but contempt for Cato, Heritage Foundation, Koch brothers, Tea Party leaders, and other establishment liberals. That said, their position on a millionaire liberal like Ron Paul - who is otherwise extremely radical - is contradictory, because Ron Paul is very much the establishment's part and parcel now. He is a likable, non-racist version of Geert Wilders, who owes his popularity to having one foot inside government and one foot outside.<br /><br />PS: The monster of an insurance legislation passed by US Senate and the opposition to it made me realize how strong a liberal fever can be in ordinary American people, who need not otherwise be liberal. However, the insurance industry controls were implemented with a lot of bullying follwed by a lot of tissue paper and generous carrots passed around to big business to stop their sobbing - it was a government at its worst behaviour.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.com