“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

“In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Resolution of 1798

Last month both the House and Senate passed two very dissimilar bills with the same purpose – to tax the American people around $900 billion more, and intervene government bureaucrats into the private lives of each man, woman, and child. Congress is currently working out the differences, my prediction is that the bill will be quite the Frankenstein after the pork is added.

As I painstakingly laid out in my health care plank last summer, its unintended consequences will worsen the quality of care and affordability of health care.  I believe the TRUE issue at stake is affordability and cost - if an MRI cost $200 instead of $3,000, it would be a lot less imperative to suggest  drastic changes like socialized medicine.  The TRUE root cause is government-sponsored insurance cartels and quality-depleting, cost-increasing legislation such as the HMO Act of 1973.  After all, President Nixon was told “all the incentives [of HMOs] are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make and all the incentives run the right way.”
(more…)

Congressman Ron Paul recently gave a speech on the House floor covering the topic of health care. In it he brought up the Flexner Report, an item few individuals have even heard about that is worthy of much more attention than it currently receives.

“A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced.” — Ron Paul; September 24, 2009

The seeds of the Flexner Report were planted in 1908 when the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching commissioned Abraham Flexner, a high school principle, to research and report on medical schools in the U.S. Flexner himself was not involved in the medical industry, but after being asked to take on the report he researched and grew fond of the medical systems in England, France, and Germany.

In the report, which was officially published in 1910, Flexner called homeopathic schools “a striking demonstration of the incompatibility of science and dogma.” What’s curious is that Flexner points out between 1900 and 1909 homeopathic schools decreased from 22 to 15 and students within the schools decreased from 1,909 to 1,009. Flexner uses these figures to conclude that “the rise of legal standard must inevitably affect homeopathic practitioners.” In short, even with the marketplace whittling out the unproductive and unsustainable homeopathic colleges (or any colleges, for that matter) that Flexner clearly did not appreciate, he still advocated increased government intervention to further clear out homeopathic schools.
(more…)

We live in times when government and central banks monopolize money and make it next to impossible for viable competing currencies to arise, which can make it difficult to see the possibility of other currency alternatives.

Picture a new village, untouched by current monetary laws. People begin exchanging goods through the process of bartering. This makes it difficult to know what you can buy, because the milkman will only need so many of the pouches that you manufacture. Because bartering can be inefficient, unpredictable, and unreliable, the people decide to represent their goods with something of value. They find copper, silver, and gold nearby, all unique, relatively limited (therefore they hold more value than, say, granite), and quite durable. Thus, they can represent their goods with these valuable metals (and to make it more convenient, paper guarantees to those metals).

Money does not get its value through “force” as some believe. When the people in the village were looking for a more effective way to exchange goods, they were not trying to represent force. They were aiming to represent value through metals that were limited enough to have value, had durability, and could not easily be counterfeit (or inflated).  Currency is never originally brought about by force or through government.

Historically government has gotten involved in currency for one reason: greed. Kings would debase the metals that the market freely used and valued. Kings would inflate and devalue the currency that was once stable when the market was in control. Government could not debase metals, clip coins, and print unsound paper money and expect people to voluntarily accept it, thus force was necessary to make it happen. Legal tender laws forced devalued government money on the people and markets.

It is difficult for government to grow when people demand the money to be backed by hard goods (such as metals). It is difficult for government to expand its presence when the money supply is stable and in the hands of the people. History clearly shows us that when government wants to expand its state or military presence beyond its usual bounds, it cannot do so without control over the nation’s money supply. Without the control of money, government would have to take every cent it needed directly from the people and businesses, an approach that would become very unpopular in a very short amount of time.

This is why governments have always tried to take control and monopolize money. If people are forced to use government money and cannot create a competing currency, they must use the money the government gives them. Government can then indirectly “tax” the people through inflation and devaluation of the currency. This allows government to grow its boundaries and influence without directly feeling the repercussions of a people who see their property forcefully go out the door to the government in the form of taxes. Monetary inflation is a very indirect and gradual process for government to take money from the people. And it can only work if people are forced to accept the debased and often worthless money. As the money supply grows without solid commodity backing, prices begin to rise, impacting poorer citizens the most.

This brings us to the U.S. Some have argued that the Constitution allows the government to pass legal tender laws and control many aspects of monetary policy. However, on close inspection, this power has been greatly abused and misinterpreted. The Constitution states:

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article I, Section 10: No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

Congress has the power to coin money, regulate its value, but nowhere does it have the authority to force people to accept that money. Congress can create and regulate its money, but it cannot mandate that people use it through legal tender laws. The states are prohibited from coining money and are required to make only “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.”

Neither the powers delegated to Congress nor the states give them the authority to shove a currency onto the people. “Legal tender” means tender in the payment of debt. The states are given the duty to be sure that only gold and silver can be legal tender. For legal and juristic purposes, only gold and silver are acceptable in the payments of debt. But this does not give the state the power to dictate the forms of other monetary commodities or economic exchanges that the people and market might come up with. In other words, the state controls the legal use of money in the payment of debt, but neither the state nor Congress has authority over the economic exchanges of money in the marketplace.

The Founders did not give the federal government the ability to monopolize currency and force it on the people. There is no power in the Constitution given to the government to restrict currency production and choice of the people and marketplace. In fact, many competing and private currencies functioned efficiently for a good part of the 1800s. Today, however, we accept legal tender laws as a legitimate role of Congress, when in reality they do nothing but unconstitutionally force a worthless currency on the people.

Consider the basic principles of modern legal tender laws. No government force or mandates would be necessary to encourage people to use a widespread, valuable, and sustainable currency. Legal tender laws and government coercion over money are always used to force a currency that would otherwise be worthless onto the people and marketplace. Imagine if the legal tender laws enacted in the 1960s, forcing people to accept Federal Reserve Notes, were repealed today. Who in their right minds would continue using a currency whose value consistently decreases, is in the control of seven central bankers, and in reality is worth nothing more than the paper on which it is printed?

People will often reply that repealing legal tender laws would lead to the creation of hundreds of private currencies and economic chaos. But remember something. Especially in today’s digital, national, and even global economy, a currency would have to be simple, recognizable, valuable, and widespread to have a chance of surviving in the market. People will naturally encourage and use the currency that holds the most value and brings the greatest amount of ease to transactions. If that is the currency produced by Congress, so be it.

Monetary freedom simply gives people the option of throwing off the restrictive chains of a centrally manipulated, inflated, and drastically devalued currency, the symptoms of a government out of control. Competition in money would force government to stay in line, live within its means (both domestically and overseas), and maintain high levels of sensibility and responsibility. History has visibly painted the picture that without control over money, government’s long-term abilities are only as able as those that the people directly delegate to it. Freedom of money plays a major role in ensuring freedom and representation in government.

“With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people.” — F.A. Hayek

“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.” — George Washington

“All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” — John Adams

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” — James A. Garfield

“We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.” — Daniel Webster

One of the greatest misunderstandings we have with government today is its true and proper role. We have seen government continually grow through Republican and Democrat administrations and both parties, come election time, spout the same drivel that they think people will gobble right up.

You will notice that at every election the talk is always about how government will improve or stimulate the economy. Government is seen as the answer from both parties to build the economy to their liking. As government has worked itself into the economic affairs of people it is increasingly looked upon as the ideal way to stimulate the economy or “save and create” jobs.

The most crucial thing that we cannot ignore is the Constitution. The document that is supposed to restrain government gives absolutely no mention that its purpose is to create or maintain jobs, “strengthen” the economy, or get involved in any economic planning whatsoever. The Founders originally recognized that the federal government was to have very little control over the economy, in order to secure the freedoms and liberties of the people to make and control their own decisions.

Gradually over the past century, those in government have ignored the essential economic freedoms that were strongly protected in the Constitution. The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 and the ability of the government to tax citizens marked a beginning of the government’s economic entrenchment. How does giving the government the power to control how much of your own labor is actually yours even come close to fitting in with economic freedom? The ludicrous idea that we work several months every year for the government tramples the laws of freedom. It is central planning in one of its worst forms.

The expression (included in the Constitution) “regulation of commerce” was suddenly taken as an excuse to regulate the production, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of any product or item that the government felt it needed to. In the Founders time, regulation simply meant “to make regular.” Today government uses the word to influence or control next to anything it likes. This includes absurd regulations such as how much water a toilet bowl can hold and the size of holes in Swiss Cheese. The Constitution does not give the federal government near the authority to get this involved in affairs that would easily be solved by the people, market, and if necessary, the states.

Government has gradually shoved itself into the economy and individual affairs of the people. The Constitution’s protection of these basic rights seems irrelevant to the bureaucrats who can’t find anything that they won’t tax, regulate, or control in some manner. As the government takes more control from the people and adds to its own unconstitutional power, people become more reliant on the services of government. Individual initiative and responsibility slowly go out the door.

I cringe when I hear that the government needs to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Many people are so ignorant to believe that if we give government just a little bit more power, a little more control, that things will improve. It is a dangerous trend when people trust government more than their own judgment and choice.

Economic sustainability cannot come from government. It is impossible for government bureaucrats, regulators, and planners to calculate rewards and corresponding risks than the people who are actually putting their time, money, and labor on the line. As we have seen largely in the past decade, these public officials have absolutely no connection to fiscal sanity and the concepts of living within your means and suffering the consequences of reckless behavior.

Many politicians won’t stop preaching that the free market brought us into this economic mess. They say that capitalism and freedom breed greed and corruption. We can be sure that these statements are full of hot air when you consider that we haven’t had a “free market” for quite some time. Government has gotten itself so entrenched in individual lives, businesses, industries, and the whole economy that it isn’t humanely possible for us to have or have had a “free market” in recent history. The effects we are seeing today are the direct results of central planning, a government with little regard for the rule of law, and the consequential disregard for individual responsibility, personal freedom, and local governance.

I would hope that people can see the failures of central planning just by looking at the events of the past couple years. It is grossly unconstitutional, intrudes on the most basic traits of human nature, and does nothing but transfer the power of the people to the government. It is not sustainable, efficient, or productive. On another level it is not moral, sensible, or legal.

In short, government is not here to create, save, or guarantee jobs. Government is not here to stimulate the economy. Government’s primary purpose, as the Founders and the Constitution recognize, is to protect and defend individual liberty and freedom (including economic liberty). Government in its best role, which the Founders tirelessly pursued and fought for, is one that stays out of the affairs of the people, allows them to make their own decisions and choices, so long as they don’t intrude on the freedom or liberty of another individual.

Liberty is one and the same; it is not meant to be separated by government into groups, economic liberties, or civil liberties. Constitutionally (and I would think morally) the government does not have the authority to decide which liberties we can and cannot manage on our own, whether it be financial liberties, economic liberties, or civil liberties. One natural liberty without another is like a tree without its roots or branches. All-inclusive individual liberty is the only true liberty.

Marriage is one of the most controversial and debated issues in the U.S. today. It seems to me that both sides of the argument are missing a key question: why is government even involved in marriage?

The history of marriage licenses is not widely known. In the early history of our republic, marriage was a family, church, and community issue. Marriage was a private contract, outside of the jurisdiction and power of the government (although unfortunately there were laws preventing whites and blacks from marrying):

No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts — Article 1, Section 10; United States Constitution

Imagine it! You didn’t need permission from the government to marry, the state didn’t dictate the rules of marriage, the government was in its proper role of protecting private contracts. Then marriage licenses started popping up in various states, primarily in the latter part of the 19th century. The legal definition of license is, “The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.”

States started requiring licenses in only one case of marriage: interracial marriage. If two whites wanted to marry, it remained a private issue and the government respected the contract. By creating marriage licenses, the states were easily able to regulate and prohibit interracial marriages (such as a white marrying a black, Native American, Japanese, Chinese, etc.). Most states wanted to keep interracial marriage in their complete control through licenses.

In 1923, the federal government passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, and by 1929 every state had created marriage license laws and carried control over marriage. This is essentially the system we have had for more than 80 years, and today people seem to have forgotten that there is another way around either legalizing or prohibiting homosexual marriage: return to the concept of private contracts.

If you are joined in a wedding ceremony without first obtaining a marriage license from the state, the state recognizes your matrimony as invalid. Without the state’s permission it cannot happen. It is the nanny state at its best in an area that government has no logical involvement. Why do married couples get special privileges that a single man or woman can’t? I find it incomprehensible that people go along with the idea that the right to marry comes from the government.

Government has mangled marriage into a scenario of special privileges and tax breaks rather than marriage’s supposed purpose of love, commitment, and the union of two souls. Marriage has become an institution of the state and, to that degree, it has been taken away from the family, community, and church. It is an issue that the government created with its own flawed beliefs of controlling the people (the states wanted to control and prevent interracial marriage and personal decisions); marriage licenses remain an easy way for government to unnecessarily regulate individuals.

There is a simple solution to the issues of marriage today, and that is to again understand contracts. Licenses were unneeded in marriage from the beginning and used only to regulate behavior that the state didn’t approve of. The government’s proper role is to recognize civil unions, uphold and protect private contracts, and return the power back to the families and churches. It is not government’s role to define marriage, control marriage, and make decisions that should be left to the local level.

The last thing people should be calling for is more government control of marriage. This takes power from individuals and local entities and gives it to government bureaucrats. In a time when constitutional amendments and increased state regulatory power over marriage are seen as the main solutions to the ongoing controversy, I implore you to consider an alternative viewpoint.

More government control over marriage is hardly a sensible and sustainable solution. Instead, allow people to voluntarily enter into contracts without the watchful eye of the state dictating the conditions. Let families, churches, and communities make the final decisions, not the state. It is time to grasp that the natural right and ability to marry does not stem from the state. Increased individual regulatory power, not increased governmental might, will go tremendously further toward solving the issues of marriage by promoting freedom and responsibility, free of state control.

New hubbub has arisen after the Obama administration announced plans to raise the national fuel mileage limit for vehicles to 35.5 MPG by 2016 . It is said that this is a major step forward to end dependence on foreign oil, promote “green” technologies, and somehow help consumers make better choices, despite the likelihood of it increasing production costs by $1,300 per vehicle. But there is a better way.

Let’s stop for a moment and consider what decreases cost and increases efficiency better than any government agency, regulation, or bureaucrat. Competition. Look at the technology industry over the past 15 or 20 years as a great example.

In the early 1990s cell phones and computers cost a bundle, were limited in their capabilities, and were largely a luxury item. These are some of the items that have escaped much of government’s grasp and intervention over the past couple decades, and look what happened. Competition flourished, prices decreased relatively quickly (and continue to decrease in many areas of the industry), and the features on cell phones and computers have reached incredible levels. This was not thanks to the government trying to manage the industry and set the standards for consumers. People choose for themselves, competition is free and open, and prices greatly decrease while the quality of the items reach new highs everyday.

The problems with inefficiency in Detroit will not be solved by more government intervention, bailouts, and special treatment. Nor will it solve our dependence on foreign oil. Competition in the market will solve these problems in a far more efficient, reliable, and less costly manner.

The first step is to let the Big 3 go bankrupt if necessary and reorganize into a viable business (or businesses). There is nothing with GM, Ford, or Chrysler that justifies preventing their bankruptcy by bailing them out with taxpayer dollars, and continuing the parenting treatment. They can grow up, accept the consequences of dumb mistakes, and readjust like everyone else. Yes, it would be painful for a year or two, but they would be required to come back with a smart business plan, efficient vehicles, and the ability to compete against the stronger Japanese automakers.

This would do much more good in the long run than the government’s endless involvement in the industry. Government limits consumer choice when it prevents an inefficient business from failing and subsequently readjusting to what consumers prefer.

If it is dependence on foreign oil you’re worried about, why not open up competition there as well? It makes little sense to ban nuclear power, heavily limit coal production, prevent a good deal of domestic oil drilling, and complain that we are too dependent on foreign oil. Why don’t consumers, communities, and states choose for themselves which energy sources are worthwhile, instead of the federal government? Give people the power of choice.

There is not one ideal energy source for every person, community, state, or country. Energy should not necessarily be treated as such a national issue, because at the heart of it energy needs start at the local level. Just look at some of the major problems caused by the federal government’s involvement in energy: a costly foreign policy partially built around the prospect of oil, the numerous subsidies to fund inefficient corn ethanol and E85, and even with the cries against CO2 we are prohibited from expanding the one major energy source that does not emit any CO2, nuclear power.

Choice of energy would tear down our need for foreign oil. It makes little sense to put the control of energy in the hands of the federal government, which can’t come close to taking into account local energy needs, preferences, and sensibility. Plus, it is the general governing, such as energy policy, that is constitutionally a state issue. The Rule of Law can’t simply be ignored when it is inconvenient for the government’s agenda.

A level playing field comes best with the free market. People should be free to make their own decisions (through their communities and state governments, if need be) with energy. Oil, nuclear power, coal, solar power, wind power, biofuels, and many other sources all have their ups and downs, and it is ridiculous to think that the federal government can effectively manage and distribute them. Give the market the ability to explore and innovate current energy sources as well as the new alternatives popping up.

The auto and energy industry will likely see increased intervention by the federal government in their affairs, while free and competitive choice slowly slides to the back of the room. People don’t have the influence they once had with their own decisions, because the federal government has apparently given itself the power to choose which businesses can fail, which products we can and can’t use, and even the power to take taxpayer dollars and hand it to private corporations.

More individual freedom and choice will hardly run our situation further into the ground. Rather, it is the choice and freedom of these industries that will further expand their sustainable development, efficiency, and promote the interests of the people over the long run.

Recently I have grown deeply concerned with the potential power grab by the central government over credit card interest rates. In a time of weak economic conditions in many industries and the overall economy in general, the White House and Congress assume they have the power and responsibility to lower credit card rates and greatly increase regulation over the industry, in order to protect the consumer.

Prior to 1937, Congress’s role in the regulation of commerce was quite simply defined as the “movement of goods” between states, and put most production and manufacturing outside of the regulatory power of Congress. This definition has essentially been abandoned ever since the Supreme Court, in 1937, upheld an act allowing Congress to regulate many aspects of labor through the National Labor Relations Board.

Before this case, activities within the states were left strictly to the states to regulate and it was out of the boundaries of the federal government to intervene. Today, this description of regulation would be laughed at by the bureaucrats in Washington arguing to regulate practically anything that the government doesn’t already have its hands on.

The issue of whether credit card rates and businesses should be regulated is a viable discussion. Traditionally, and constitutionally, this is an issue that should absolutely be left to the states. It is a local issue and not an interstate issue, thus taking it out of Congress’s regulation jurisdiction. At least, this is what the case would have been before 1937 when a more clear interpretation was used to define the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

The troubling aspect of the new potential regulations of credit cards is that it is the Federal Reserve Board who is making many of the new decisions and regulations limiting credit-rate increases, set to take effect in 2010. Now, think for a moment.

If it used to be out of the constitutional boundaries of Congress to regulate local and state matters like credit card rates, where on earth does the Federal Reserve get the constitutional authority to set and carry out these regulations? It is troubling that the Constitution can be trampled on this much without so much as a peep asking where the constitutional authority for these powers is derived from.

The issue of whether these regulations are needed or worthwhile is one thing. But rough problems today will easily turn into a disaster tomorrow if there is no check on government. Today we are seeing a federal government with few boundaries or concern for following the Constitution. Our government was created under the Constitution, and the federal government and Congress specifically were given very specific and limited powers. This was generally respected for the first 150 years of our nation’s history.

Credit card regulation may certainly be beneficial on a state level. If the regulation is needed, constitutionally it is clearly and definitively a decision to be debated and made by the states, not the federal government or Federal Reserve. Currently not only is state power being trampled on, but Congress has turned and continues to turn the responsibility of the states over to a closed-off, powerful, independent agency whose very constitutionality itself is questionable.

In today’s time of calls for more federal regulation, intervention, and control over finance, it is hard to imagine a time when Congress’s role in commerce was so narrowed down to regulating the movement of goods between states. It isn’t too unlikely that the Federal Reserve will gain even more regulatory powers over the financial industry over the next several years. What’s ironic is that it is all being carried out in the name of protecting the consumer.

It is absurd to think that allowing the Federal Reserve to carry more regulatory responsibility will help consumers. They have no constitutional authority to regulate, the operators of the Fed are not elected by the people, and the primary operations of the Fed are off-limits to audits. You cannot tell me that this group can adequately protect consumers and not pander to the banking interests who run the agency.

True regulatory representation of the consumer can only be achieved through the states. If it isn’t the individuals who decide the regulations, it isn’t right to call it consumer protection, is it? It’s a head scratcher to think that the same organization who has destroyed the value of our currency (which hits the lower and middle class hardest) can stand up for consumers with a straight face.

It is largely a lack of understanding and respect for the Constitution that got us into this mess in the first place. Many in government either do not understand, or simply ignore, the restraints placed on Congress’s regulatory power and the 10th Amendment’s clear language bringing issues not given to the federal government back to the states and the people.

If it is consumers who you want to protect, all you have to do is follow, respect, and protect the Constitution. Through their local, state, and own regulatory power, the free individuals of this country can do the rest.

“If the provisions of the constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.” — Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court George Sutherland

The main arguments against capitalism, that I’ve heard, include that it’s an unfair system primarily about greed and taking advantage of your fellow man. Arguments for government intervention and social planning can sound attractive. “Free” education, “free” health care; as the laundry list of “free” items stack up, it sometimes sounds too good to pass up.

The primary problems that I see with government intervention and central planning on all levels is that it assumes that those select few individuals know what’s best for the people, the economy, etc. Capitalism is the only system that “admits”, so to speak, that there is room for improvement outside the control of the government and central planners. Human nature to increase efficiency, get lower prices, and create sustainable living styles cannot be outdone by an interventionist government system.

What we’re going to realize is that a nationalized, subsidized, and fiat money economy is not sustainable. We’ve experienced and tinkered with it for nearly a century, and while the short-term results haven’t been too bad, it simply cannot last. With an inflationary monetary system like we’ve had since 1971, saving is discouraged because it makes no sense to hold dollars when they’re losing value every month. This is the largest fundamental problem with our economy today. It seems that we always have to be spending, that is at the heart of the bailouts and stimulus packages over the past year. Never has it been suggested that people save money and make their own decisions with their money. Whether it be banks or auto businesses, the U.S. has lost the core capitalist principle of individual responsibility and instead has gone the route of letting no one fail.

I’ve heard many times that we’ve had an economy of greed over the past several years. In many ways this is correct, but blaming it on capitalism is not. I believe that our paper money system controlled by the Federal Reserve has encouraged more greed than anything else. When you have a deceitful central bank with an unsound currency, I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of that not stimulating greed. Central banks do not hold the citizens’ interest, that is the first thing to remember. With the Fed, we have a central bank who doesn’t even give out the names of the many banks it has loaned trillions of dollars to in a matter of months. With these special, unbalanced interests, it will not impact the economy in a good way. Couple this with a paper money currency enforced by the government which leads to higher prices and a stretched middle class, and you’ve got a recipe for greed and reckless spending to take off. I am not saying that the Fed is the only entity or factor to blame, but merely that it has contributed more than anything else to this unbalanced and unfair economy.

When the greed argument is used to blame capitalism, this often is aimed at “lack of regulation” on Wall Street. With the amount of bickering about too little regulation, you’d think we had a system of anarchy ten years ago. People forget about Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that came of that scandal. People forget that The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established in 1934 to prevent corporate abuse on reporting information. Laws and regulations have stacked up for 70+ years, yet bad and stupid things still happen in the world of business. Only now, when something goes wrong, the whole country accepts more regulations and the belief that more money poured into government intervention will suddenly make everything better.

Instead of shareholders being responsible for the business and its accounting practices, the SEC stepped in and essentially led people to believe that it has everything under control. It discourages investors from performing their own research and due diligence. Rather than the SEC, FDIC, and lord knows what other regulatory agencies try to take the place of personal research and responsibility, the destiny of a business must lie with the shareholders and consumers. As we can see from the past hundred years or so, when the government tries to take the place of the invisible hand of supply and demand, it does not solve the problems. It’s foolish to think that the government and central planners can perform a task in a more efficient, smart, and sustainable manner than the individuals of this country.

As the federal government and Federal Reserve have pulled in more responsibility for themselves, taking it from the people, we have embarked on the road to nationalization, big business, and big government. We’ve tried our hand at nationalized education, which has been a horrendous excuse for a public program. Ever since the 1970s the federal government has gotten much more involved with the health care industry and put more control into the drug companies, taking away from the pivotal patient/doctor relationship. In a broader sense, we are quickly moving toward nationalizing industries, both with government and through the government’s favoring of larger corporations.

What I see this as is an attack on localization. I find it silly to believe that we can solve our problems by putting them up on a larger scale, by “modernizing” industries which has always led to the destruction of smaller businesses at the hands of government intervention, and many other ways through government involvement. By discouraging local and community involvement, we have lost the key to what makes an economy great. Strong growth doesn’t mean a thing on its own in the short-term. Rather, it is strong, sustainable, honest growth that capitalism aims to create. I think the easiest, most efficient, and most sustainable way to achieve this is through local economies and community involvement. Whether it be with politics, economics, or business, it is the personal interaction that makes a strong system.

When we nearly force businesses and politics to be done at a national level, it tears away the personal touch that is so essential to a prosperous society. Individual responsibility is much more easily accomplished through a local economy, rather than through a government and corporate-controlled national economy, which is increasingly evident what we have in place today. With politics, it is much simpler and beneficial to bring about change on a local or state level than on the national scale. I think the same goes for a business and economy too. With a strong, involved community, next to nothing is impossible.

The Founding Fathers shared this ideal as they were writing the Constitution and envisioning America. They made it very clear in the Bill of Rights with the 10th Amendment; that issues not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states were to be put in the power of the states or the people:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal government was not created to solve every social, economic, and even political problem. The federal government was initially created to be as little involved as possible compared to the states, but today the opposite seems to be true. Rather than give more power to the people and states to make their own decisions and take their own responsibility, that power has been given, like never before, to the federal government. In other words, localization is near being destroyed due to nationalization and a huge federal government overstepping its bounds.

The sooner we realize that individuals, local communities, and states can solve their own problems far better than the federal government, the sooner we will be on the road to recovery, and a prosperous, sustainable economy and society.