Why Debate Criminal Policies?
February 25, 2006
By Douglas B. Wakeman
I am often drawn into arguments with socialists or Keynesians (pardon the redundancy), on economic policies. They spout the benefits of their totalitarian tinkering with the market, never, even for one second, considering the costs. I think they went through 4 years of college being spoon-fed Marxist dogma as economics, and are totally unaware of the first rule of economics; the rule that Socialists must never acknowledge - there are trade-offs to every economic action.
Anyway, the primary point is not which economic policy has the best cost/benefit profile. The first consideration must always be - is the action legal?
This is because, if you argue free market versus socialist policies that you or your opponent seek to have imposed un-constitutionally upon the people by a bunch of vote whores in Washington then you are just two totalitarians debating different ways to rule over slaves.
So, don’t argue whether an old-age pension plan, paid family leave, unemployment insurance or price and wage controls should or should not be mandated by the federal government. Just say, the Constitution does not give them that authority. There is no argument.
Those who think that the federal government should establish pension, leave, insurance or wages policies for private business need to lobby for a constitutional amendment and get two-thirds of the congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Period. End of discussion.
Well, not quite. The
government is already imposing these things unlawfully. So, first we need to
get one or two more Supreme Court justices who will follow the Constitution so
that we can get these outrages reversed. Then the economic morons will have to
go through the proper legal process and try to get the people to accept their
socialist tyranny through constitutional amendment.
Comments: