Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?

[zukiphile]

I pulled this out of the “well regulated militia/bulwark against tyranny” thread, since it was tangentially related but not directly on topic, in the hope of saving a mode from having to prune it out himself.

The issue presented is whether one can oppose growth of government power without being an anarchist. I think one plainly can, though not all agree.

Originally Posted by I

Like OSHA, EPA, IRS and EEOC?

Originally Posted by I

Lee, we all need help now and then. Only some realise it.

If tyranny is the arbitrary use of absolute power, these elements of the federal apparatus are regular offenders. You don't need a stated policy of abuse in order for state authority to be regularly abused; it is inherent in enthusiastic service combined with limited foresight and other normal human vices.

In any event and before anyone misreads, those agencies are mentioned not because they merit armed resistence at the moment, but because their actions are not just "small, temporary occurrences that result from one official making a bad spur-of-the-moment decision". They are programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty.

"Historic liberty"?

Are you talking about some "historic right" to pollute, operate an unsafe workplace, discriminate against people based on their skin color or race, and not pay taxes? How are those things "liberties" since to allow you to do any or all of them would constitute an infringement upon the rights of others? You're not saying that you're the only one that has rights now, are you? Don't your neighbors have a right to enjoy their property, including a right not to have you degrade their land by dumping toxins on your own? Are you saying that people don't have a right to apply for jobs, school admission or buy/rent homes without regard to their color, race or gender?

Reality is, we live in a society. Everyone else has rights too, and the government can regulate some individual rights in order to protect the rights and safety of everyone. That's exactly what our nation's founders set out to do when they wrote the constitution and created a government, not an endorsement of anarchy.

Originally Posted by I

Lee, if you would like to further discuss your confusion of liberty and anarchy, feel free to start a thread about it. However you are far off topic, which I understand to be a board rule violation.

We wouldn't want board anarchy.

Originally Posted by I

Lee, I will discuss this with you in this thread, once you obtain the approval of a moderator. Why would you not want to start a new thread? You don't appear to have read the posting rules, or my prior posts on this page.

You are also free to discuss it with me at the link below, which has less restrictive posting rules.

Lee, since your schedule didn’t allow you to start a new thread, I have.

First, compare the two bolded sentences above. I have to think that reading the former would keep you from writing the latter.

Second, let’s have just a bit of historical review. At the turn of the 20th century, the SCOTUS expanded application of the commerce clause, to include virtually any activity, even if it was not what any layman would call “interstate”. They reasoned that even strictly intrastate non-commercial activity could have consequences for interstate commercial activity, and so could fall within federal regulatory authority. It is this shift that paved the metaphorical way for the current environment in which moving sand on your own property or who you hire and fire becomes a federal matter literally.

This is an extension of federal power well beyond limits envisioned even by original advocates of strong federal government. This power is often applied arbitrarily or non-uniformly simply because different US attorneys use different standards for what they will or will not prosecute. One has prosecuted and impoverished a man simply for moving sand on his own property by arguing to the court that sand was a toxic substance. Other US attorneys offices, have no interest in those prosecutions. Certainly some agencies have bad actors who set out to manufacture evidence or purjure themselves for a prosecution, but that is more a chronic problem of human nature. The problems arises when even well meaning minions of the state are invested with such wide authority that they exercise it in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and not in a manner that a government should expect to treat free men.

To note that the current scope of federal power is too great, and that some agencies exercise that power in harsh and arbitrary ways is not an argument against all government. It is an argument against a governmental nanny that a healthy political body would not entrust with that sort of authority. It is an argument for limited government.

[copenhagen]

Stagger Lee:

across-the-board anti-government fear and raging hate

copenhagen:

Raging hate? I don't think one needs accuse someone of raging hate because they are concerned for their Country, and see the building blocks for globalization and destruction of our Constitution, and tyranny, are already being silently slid into place. Hate? No. Concern for Country, Liberty, and American Citizens? Yes.

As I previously posted in the last thread, I do agree with you on this zukiphile. Government is a necessary evil. It is and has always been my opinion, that we use as little of it as possible. I liked the comparison that was made of government to fire. A little can keep you warm, but it spreads easily, requiring constant monitoring to keep it contained, and if you get to close, you will get burned.

[zukiphile]

Government is a necessary evil.

I have a problem with describing a necessity as evil. I doubt anyone would consider the extravagent proliferation of federal agencies since WWI necessary.

[copenhagen]

Ok, so instead of necessary evil, I'll say this: Government is an extremely volitile thing which has potential to cause untold human tragedy if not kept in check. If constantly monitored, some good can come from it. Even maggots are used by doctors to eat away dead flesh in burn victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy

[publius42]

Second, let’s have just a bit of historical review. At the turn of the 20th century, the SCOTUS expanded application of the commerce clause, to include virtually any activity, even if it was not what any layman would call “interstate”.

Actually, at the turn of the century and for a couple of decades afterward, the power to TAX, not the commerce power, was used when the feds wanted to regulate something not otherwise covered by the Constitution.

A prominent early example would be the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, which set the precedent for the later National Firearms Act of 1934 and Marihauna Tax Act of 1937.

It was in 1942 that the commerce power began to replace the taxation power as the "go-to" power to stretch when the feds wanted to regulate something which was not clearly covered by the Constitution. The famous case from that year was Wickard v Filburn. That was the first SC case to use the "substantial effects" test and the "aggregation principle" and together they allowed the SC to decide that homegrown wheat for personal use is interstate commerce.

In more recent years, the courts have concluded that homegrown cannabis plants and machine guns for personal use are also interstate commerce. The federal partial birth abortion ban is based in the commerce power. We have also had court cases regarding whether being near a school with a gun is interstate commerce (Lopez, which we actually lost, btw), whether rape is interstate commerce (Morrison), whether assisted suicide is interstate commerce (Oregon), and then-judge (now Chief Justice) Roberts once concluded that an indigenous California toad is NOT interstate commerce.

Obviously, since we can still identify something which is not interstate commerce, the scope of federal power is just fine.

[Monsterman]

It's basically an illusion is what it is. "Uncle Sam" is the boogey man that adults are afraid of.

[copenhagen]

It's basically an illusion is what it is. "Uncle Sam" is the boogey man that adults are afraid of.

And that one timber wolf that only two sheep in the flock have seen or remember is the 'illusion' that the sheep dog is afraid of.

[.300H&H]

People are poor judges of tyranny. I could visit a plantation in the Deep South in 1851, and people would tell me they are free and happy. At the great mint-julep fish-fry party, banjo-playing slaves would tell me of good times on the ol'plantation. I could visit Germany in 1939 and find common citizens telling me how things are getting better now - how times are improving. I could visit a ralley and hear the leader proclaim the vision of people controlling the state instead of the state controlling people. I could see people shouting Sieg Heil as if it were a kind of liberating experience rather than an expierence of enslavement.


Yeah, tyranny is a funny thing. When a nation invades a foreign land and kills a million people in that distant foreign land - whether it be an old-fashioned blitzkrieg or a new-fangled one with smart bombs and robotic drones - it's funny how people don't really care about it or rationalize its lies and flippant hypocrisies...instead of seeing these events as true symptoms of tyranny and their own government's shadow power running amuck. People can be very selfish -and their minds have a tendancy to compartmentalize, rationalize and objectify things in the most peculiar kinds of ways.


We recognize that Zeus was a figment of the ancient Greek imagination - a fairy tale, a myth, a projected father/big brother-daddy of the Greek people.
Unfortunately, many of the ancient Greeks saw him as real - and did not take kindly to rebels and anarchists poking fun at their cherished illusions. Socrates is an example of someone who had to drink hemlock for causing the youth to betray the gods. In Roman times the early 'christians' weren't tortured and executed for their spirituality ie. many of them were accused of being godless athiests and traitors; they were treated as the Bolsheviks of their day - threats to the Roman way of life.


I would like to believe Americans are free, and that they are better than the ancient Greeks and Romans at seeing through the illusions of religion and political ideology. Unfortunately, I know they are no bettrer - and perhaps they are even worse. The best slaves are the ones who cherish their masters. The best slaves are the ones who think they are free, who cannot see through illusions that have been imprinted on their souls since their earliest days of life.


'You do not have to live in a Totalitarian Society to be Totalitarian.'
- George Orwell

'You do not have to live in Free Society to be a Free Thinker.'
- Me

[copenhagen]

.300H&H:

I hear you Buddy! Very well stated.

[Huntergirl]

Face it. America is leaning Left, with all the ramifications. Interesting with all the millionaires we have here. But even Russia had its millionaires, at the tearing down of the wall/ dissolution. So where do Socialist countries get their millionaires from? I think the answer is somewhere between freedom and tryanny. Near corrupt government involvement maybe, or maybe near no government involvement. How many American millionaires/billionaires created their wealth in the last 20 years purely honorably, and legitimitely by their own bootstraps? Far fewer than the unethical ones, I would bet.
This figures into the original question posted because while many, including me oppose the increasing government intrusion, many only weigh government involvement with how financially properous can an indiviual become under that government, as a barometer to indicate whether the gov is tyrannical for them, or whether it will facilitate wealth for them.

[dm1333]

A little devils advocate for you:

In any event and before anyone misreads, those agencies are mentioned not because they merit armed resistence at the moment, but because their actions are not just "small, temporary occurrences that result from one official making a bad spur-of-the-moment decision". They are programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty.

You mentioned OSHA in relation to your quote above. A friend of mine was the executor (?) of her father's estate. He died a very painful death from mesothelioma. About two weeks ago the building I worked in had an OSHA inspector come in because there has been construction going on and OSHA recieved an anonymous call station concerns about the asbestos in the building being disturbed.

If you were to ask me how I felt about OSHA making programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty, I would have to say it felt pretty good. I have no desire to go through what my friends father went through.

[Huntergirl]

OSHA however does not cover state and some federal workplaces. Employees cannot sue state employers for the most part. So OSHA does not uniformly investigate all workplaces. I am suspicious of agencies that only investigate private sector.

[Erik]

"Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?"

Define "oppose."

[Huntergirl]

Strongly disagree with, would be my definition.

[dm1333]

The building they inspected is federal property and a military installation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a problem with describing a necessity as evil.

"Necessary evil" is a technical term, referring to things which would be evils if they weren't unavoidably necessary to achieve some good. "Evil" in this case not meaning some kind of metaphysical nastiness, but only the opposite of "good".

Vaccination, say. If there were a better way to render people immune to diseases they'd never had, going around sticking needles in children would be viewed as a form of assault.

I often have trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who seem convinced that once you've proven that something is necessary in one case, (Taxation, for instance.) you've proven that it's good, not evil, and you no longer have any burden to prove that it's necessary in other cases.

[zukiphile]

Strongly disagree with, would be my definition.

That's what I had in mind. That disagreement could range from making a case against it on a message board, to litigating against federal usurpation, to support of legislative limits on excesses.

[zukiphile]

A little devils advocate for you:

Alway welcomed.

You mentioned OSHA in relation to your quote above. A friend of mine was the executor (?) of her father's estate. He died a very painful death from mesothelioma. About two weeks ago the building I worked in had an OSHA inspector come in because there has been construction going on and OSHA recieved an anonymous call station concerns about the asbestos in the building being disturbed.

If you were to ask me how I felt about OSHA making programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty, I would have to say it felt pretty good. I have no desire to go through what my friends father went through.

I also prefer the term "executrix", since that is the correct english word for that position, but many courts will describe a woman as an executor whether from sloth, ignorance or ideology.

I'd say that your example presents the issue of whether the ends justify the means. Meso is a bad way to go, but I wouldn't call it worse than emphasema or lung cancer. If you are familiar with meso cases, you know that most of the people who worked with the material smoked too, which can be a complicating factor in determining the actual cause of death. Should a federal agency also prevent people from smoking? What about eating fatty foods? Or encountering stress at work?

Life is rich with dangers. Even if you favor some sort of governmental role in keeping people from making inferior decisions, it doesn't compel support of the federal government playing that role. I don't think keeping people from encountering any danger is set forth in the COTUS as a federal role.

[.300H&H]

Federal Authority can be opposed in good faith - but it's a difficult task, especially if one wants to effectively win against Federal Authority.
While Federal Authority is a tough mean ol'cookie, it is sometimes a welcomed relief and a good allie in the fight against certain state and local authorities.Sometimes things can be even worse at the state and local level.


OSHA and the EEOC<especially the EEOC>and other Fed.agencies can be pathetic bureaucracies, but I have occassionally come across some downright horrific state and local agencies, which only the Feds.could straiten out.


I've managed to keep a good relationship<they now aren't after me>with the IRS - but one thing that really makes me angry about the IRS, is the arrogance of that agency. I once had to contact the IRS over a minor tax error, and I naively thought I'd just drive down to the local IRS office and say hello... Guess what? I couldn't find the IRS office. It was like a SECRET GOVT. AGENCY ie. no office - just a POB and a phone number. It was like trying to contact Darth Veder or some Mafia Boss. Gee, my own government doesn't want me to be able to find it? Is the Govt. that scared of its own citizens - that distrustful, closed and arrogant?


Less than a fraction of 1% of all filed EEOC complaints truely get any real investgation or due process. The agency apparantly cherry picks its own politically correct agenda of cases. I can't think of any Govt. Agency that truely inspres me with confidence. Whether its OSHA, the IRS, the FDA, the EEOC<name your favorite agency> I never feel like they are on my side inasmuch I fell like just another 'petty pest' for them to 'eliminate.'


Can one fight City Hall? No. As much as I would like to support anyone's right to drive a car without a car tag, I'm still going to drive with a current tag. I know what the outcome will be if I bravely remove my tag and begin to challenge the 'authorities.' Comrades, I support you, but currently I have more to lose than just my chains... Maybe if things get worse I'll join the great revolution, but for now I'll be a rat that stays on board the ship.


One funny fact: Vermont has the only truely identified Socialist Representative in the U.S. ie. B.Saunders<sp> of the Democratic Socialists of America - but Vermont is one of the best states - if not the very best - in regard to pro-gun, pro-2nd Amend. Rights. When Americans start yapping against 'socialism' I sometimes don't know what they really mean ie. Americans have been so indoctrinated against the word 'socialism' I think they are misguided in that arena. There are quite a few things worse than 'progressive socialism' ie. 'total corporate power' can be quite nasty!
I don't particularly want universal healthcare, but if the alternative is some dysfunctional managed care corporate system that can't even grant me portable insurance or insure me at all - then the universal care starts looking more viable.

[Monsterman]

"Safe societies" do not evolve. I won't sacrifice one inch.

And these bullies can be beaten just like any other bully. It is quite fitule to assume, or to even attempt to prove otherwise.

[jrfoxx]

I agree that the federal government has been grown WELL beyond what was intended by the founders, or what is necessary to protect the rights of everyone, maintain order, govern, etc.

Just because I believe this, and advocate a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced, and less intrusive federal government, and oppose a number of laws, policies, and government agencies and their actions, does not make me an anarchist, not is it me advocating revolution, armed resistance, or the trampling, or lessened protection, of other rights.

It isn't an "all or nothing" proposition with regards to the power and size of the federal government. One can VERY much advocate for less federal power, control, and intrusion and not be advocating anarchy, or anything close to it, just as someone else can support a larger, or more powerful federal government than I want, or even one larger and more powerful than what we already have, and not be a fascist, or advocating a police state.There is a LOT of room in between.

I think the feds have WAY overstepped their bounds, and need to be significantly reduced in power, size, and scope, but I certainly don't think revolution is the only, best, or even currently necessary way to achieve that. But, saying that it MAY be necessary someday is not advocating anarchy, trampling anyones rights, or me advocating revolution (in fact, I hope that something so extreme will never, ever, come even close to happening or being needed), it's just stating a simple fact, and not taking a VERY necessary option completely off the table, and an option that I feel the founders supported, and made VERY clear, was a legitimate option when all other reasonable ones have failed.

If the founders didn't support revolution when it was needed, then the U.S. wouldn't even exist, since revolution against their own government is EXACTLY what they did to found this country, and I think anyone who feels revolution is NEVER an option, or is not supported by the Constitution or the writing of the founders, as being a bit naive, or just not being honest.Also to say that revolution against a government perceived by the governed as tyrannical is not a "right", is foolish, without support, not honest, and is in fact advocating tyranny, and a total police state where no one has ANY rights, only whatever privileges the government may allow you to have, if any.

If one were to say that revolution was never an option, then what is supposed to happen if/when the government decides it can take away whatever rights it wants from the people? Some will say that it cant happen because we can vote. Well, a vote only counts if the government wants it too. Every single person in this country could vote for, say, a president to NOT get to be "leader for life" like he proposes, but if the leader controls the military, and simply ignores the vote, then your magical "we can change anything with votes and laws" is worthless. Laws and votes only count for something if the person with the owner allows it too.

But, all that doesnt mean you can form a militia and start and armed rebellion against the government because to think the war on drugs is tyranny, or that OSHA's activities are tyranny, or that "high toll road fees" are tyranny. Armed rebellion is for when all other options are exhausted, AND the government is horribly tramplimg peoples core rights en masse, which a beef about 1 or 2 agnecies, or taxes, certainly is not. Just like in law, he "reasonable man" thing come into play. Saying there is a right to armed rebellion doesnt mean its an individual right that anyone can act on for any reason they see fit. Obviously, it's something that needs to have an overwhelming majority support for, otherwise it isnt revolution, its just treason or murder, and it would be unsuccessful anyways. The right to armed rebellion doesnt mean crazy old Bob down the raod gets to go shoot up city hall over the "tyranny" of getting fined for the 30 rusted out junk cars in his front lawn, no matter how mu HE beleives its tyranny and trampling his rights.Again, when there is an overwhelming majority taking up arms, it's pretty clear that the cause is reasonable, whereas when its just a handful of people, it's pretty clear that it isnt reasonable to the vast majority, and those guys are off thier rocker, and can be dealt with as criminals, as thier right to rebellion isnt in play.

I think Stagger Lee knows this too, in spit of his comment:

The topic was that people have some right to organize and rise up against whatever they think "tyranny" is (high toll road fees?) and you cited those government agencies as examples of tyranny. I simply pointed out that the power to creat such agencies for the common good was in fact given to our government by the drafters of our constitution, and suddenly you're done. Game, set, match to me. But it was definitely related to the topic, especially the next anticipated exchange where I was getting set to ask you about your opinion regarding your "right" to pick up a gun and rebel against the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and when you planned to do it.

He was trying to shut the OP down with a ridiculous, extreme argument, knowing that no one would agree rebellion was legit in his scenario, and high toll fees isnt tyranny in all but a few serious kooks minds.

Or, maybe he really DOES think that there is NEVER a right to armed rebellion like he seems to imply a bit, no matter what the government does, or how much of the population is against them, and yet the government refuses to obey the peoples wishes and just ignores them and continues to do as it pleases.

[publius42]

Should a federal agency also prevent people from smoking? What about eating fatty foods? Or encountering stress at work?

Well, all of those thing affect interstate commerce. Try to name something that doesn't! (Indigenous California toads are already taken. )

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

D'oh! Should have spelled that out a little more clearly at the time, James.

[Erik]

""Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?"

"Define "oppose.""

"Strongly disagree with, would be my definition."

Then yes, absolutely, without any caveats.

[Dearhunter61]

I think that is what we are going to see come to pass in a couple of months. How will we see it? We will see it when we see the election returns.

jrfoxx, you present your views elegantly and I must agree with you.

I submit the following as a way to bring revolution to our country, that being change. I do not think the system we have in place is effective, it is not just one part but some of all, nor do I think it represents the people as it should. To have only a two party system, I know there will perhaps be a couple who will say we have more than two but we do not have more than two that truly have a say in each and every election, is simply not representitive of the people any longer. I know I vote Republican and have for the last 12 years but to say they really represent my views would be incorrect. They are simply the best of the worst.

I have spoke to a lot of people and almost all agree the two major parties today DO NOT represent them. So what do we need? A couple of more parties which would represent the country more effectively. I am not saying replace the two current parties...just add a couple of more. I know this is probably a pipedream but in this way we would have a better chance of our voice being heard. What is the main obstacles? First and foremost money and then the time to present the message/platform effectively over a 4-8 year period to build credibility with those around the country who share those views and then build the confidence in them so that they would vote for the candidates of the parties. The only way to make this happen is on the ground level at our local elections.

Would this create the type of government all want...not because someone will always be on the side that got defeated in the last election but it at least would provide a more representitive government that we have now. I believe one of the reasons we do not have a better turn out at our elections is the very thing I have stated above...neither party represents a lot of the people so they choose not to vote.

I realize that some will say that is the last thing we need but if you feel that way perhaps you can provide a solution minus an armed revolution?

[Crosshair]

If you were to ask me how I felt about OSHA making programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty, I would have to say it felt pretty good. I have no desire to go through what my friends father went through.

My experience with OSHA has been one of incompetence.

Several people at my former job have complained to OSHA about a rolling rack that has been of its tracks for over 4 months and is a clear safety violation. OSHA has taken no action.

Two weeks ago I had to drive two hours to a site to cut some zip ties and rearrange cords because OSHA declared the the power strips to the computer equipment being zip tied to the rack made them a "permanent" installation and were therefore a safety hazard. However I could leave them laying on the floor and have them be a trip hazard since that would be considered a "temporary" installation. (Those power strip are probably going to be there "temporarily" for about 10-15 years.) Using zip ties to secure power strip is a common practice in server rooms. I've never heard of problems arising from them being zip tied vs just hanging. The OSHA agent felt like simply being an ass that day it seems.

Those are just the two most recent ones I can think up. I need to get to bed.