Checks and Balances

Masterpiece is the first such case to make it to the justices.

Source: Can States Compel You to Bake a Cake Against Your Will? The Supreme Court Will Decide. By Stephanie Slade at reason.com

Masterpiece exposes another gross example of democracy/federalism gone bad …which always occurs… given sufficient time.

But more specifically, such cases show the limitation of nearly all laws, but especially those which create arbitrary classes and bright-line definitions that eventually reveal substantial uncertainty, create confusion, and then worse, become the basis for legal conclusions that are beyond absurd …like forcing a baker to bake a cake for someone …for whatever reason. And, not to mention, that such laws are not practically enforceable; thus, a waste of resources.

But perhaps most importantly, affirmation of such laws fuels the expansion of the veiled slavery under which virtually all of us live. I can only pray that SCOTUS doesn’t it take itself too seriously, and relieves us of another pseudo-intellectual juggernaut against those who earn their livelihood through mutual consent versus those that feel compelled to enforce this tripe, and can afford to do so only through the force government because there is no economic check on the theft of taxation.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source: reason.com
Media source: reason.com
Image source: reason.com; Katherine Mangu-Ward

Source: The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

In the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard, Fegley’s article exposes the fundamental reasons why the proverbial concept of “checks and balances” between the three branches of American government fails to protect its constituents …and I would offer, why at fundamental level government is unsustainable and doomed to fail: because all men are self-interested, regardless of the type of organizational structure from which they work.

Yet this begs the question of organizational structure – which is better?

Government

Non-Profit

Limited liability company

Partnership

Corporation

Sole-Proprietorship

Some would say that it depends.

In truth, they are all “fictions of law” or “creatures of statute”, and thus arbitrary. Nothing is accomplished by these entities unless someone actually does something i.e. digs hole, types a letter, diagnoses cancer or protects your home, etc.

Only individuals think, decide and act – not entities.

All governmental employees provide goods and services too – but because they work for government, they are not held to the higher bar of consensual exchange imposed upon non-governmental employees where the decision “to buy” is left solely to the customer.

Instead, the entire foundation of government and the subsistence of its employees is based upon force. There is no choice whether you want their services; and hence, no basic justice – which is the cornerstone of a peaceful and prosperous culture.

As such, the creation of government (not the services of governance) necessarily creates two groups of people which are held to entirely different standards of care and where the governmental class exists upon the efforts the non-governmental class – like or not – it’s actually a form of serfdom or slavery, not to mention that this sanctioned theft creates an enduring and seemingly ever expanding safe harbor for waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

Yes, the Constitution was a fantastic idea for its time and relative to other systems it has served the country’s constituents well, but time has exposed its deep flaws – namely as Fegley quoted Rothbard, pieces of paper don’t enforce themselves.

Think about it: The Constitution was signed in 1778. Fast forward to today and we can clearly see the metastasis of the U.S. Government and current conflicts of interest such as the debacle du jour: the alleged preferential treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI.

Is this result surprising given the rise and fall of so many civilizations?

As we can see, the great system of “checks and balances” is forever flawed by an inherent conflict of interest.

Each branch of government tends to cover the others because they all need each other to maintain the edifice of government and the interest of those who benefit from the status quo. No conspiracy here – just an expression of human nature.

The only “checks and balances” we really need is the maintenance of the power for each person to decide whether he or she needs any good or service – and for this to be enforced based upon one rule of law – the Non-Aggression Principle.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source: Tate Fegley https://mises.org/blog/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-new-attack-fourth-amendment.
Media source: www.mises.org

Share this:

Share this: