Economics Is Super Hard, Y’all (Part III)


{“That is the proper role of government.” The interpretation you’ve stated here is what is called the “strict constitutional” or Madison interpretation of the constitution and differs from the more commonly used “implied powers” interpretation from Hamilton. The supreme court doesn’t agree with you John on the power of Congress to “promote the General Welfare”, as clearly shown in its decisions on social security. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html , http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html) Since the Supreme Court is, in fact, chosen by the Fathers and the Constitution to officially, you know, interpret the Constitution, I think its their pervue to say what the Constitution means. As smart as you are, I will take the supreme courts cumulative decisions on the constitution over yours any day. Sorry, no offence.}

.

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the constitution. Article III, Section II grants them the authority to preside over “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” but judicial rule is never mentioned. After the Supreme Court granted themselves the power of Judicial Rule in 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote Marshall, saying “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” 

 Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1803 case “Marbury vs. Madison” that any law contradicting the Constitution is automatically null and void. Third of all, are you talking about the same Supreme Court that, in “Dredd Scot vs. Sanford,” ruled that black people can never be US citizens and thus cannot have their voices heard? (Now that’s democracy!) Or are you talking about the Supreme Court that ruled in “Buck vs. Bell” that the government can order someone sterilized for being feeble-minded? Or perhaps you mean the Supreme Court that ruled in “Korematsu vs. United States” that it’s ok to put American citizens in concentration camps based on their ethnicity? This is why democracy is a bad form of government. When a majority is able to pass or interpret laws that force their beliefs on others, you have rule by the mob.

With this rule you can do things like ban gay marriage or force religious business owners to serve gay customers, both of which are tyrannical and immoral for the same reason. The central tenet of democracy is that the rights of the individual can be tossed aside for the benefit of the “greater good.” As Hillary Clinton put it, “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best about society.” But Ayn Rand points out, “The smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” Do you understand? Society is made up of individuals, so if individual rights are not safeguarded, neither will society’s. And it’s unjust to say that morals apply differently from individuals to groups. One person stealing from a rich man is theft; a million persons stealing from a rich man is “taxation based on paying your fair share.” And that is what democracy is all about; forcing others to do what you want while hiding behind the State. If you, as an individual, would not hold a gun to a businessman’s head and demand that he pay his employees $10.10/hour, why would you have the government do it for you?

Oh, and by the way, Greg Mankiw points out in his book Principles of Economics that 79% of economists believe raising the minimum wage will have a negative impact on low-skilled workers (https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/10009346_763076907060067_1621829056_n.png)

Furthermore, 46% of economists favor abolishing the minimum wage altogether (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ev.2006.3.9/ev.2006.3.9.1156/ev.2006.3.9.1156.xml). The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that although most MW workers would receive higher pay from the raise, “some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly.” (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf) Liberty isn’t good just because it’s admirable from a philosophical or moral viewpoint. Liberty is good because it’s beneficial to the individual and the human race. Countries that love liberty have more good to show for it (http://americansforprosperityfoundation.com/missouri/files/2013/12/Ecnomic-Freedom-Income.png).

You can keep your welfare and minimum wage–just give me liberty and I won’t need either.