I Often Wonder How the Left Justifies This

Certainly they are fans of government regulations, but that has consequences. Consequences like this. It’s very difficult, actually, for ordinary people to avoid committing federal crimes. How do progressives justify a regulatory state with the power to destroy lives over something so trivial? How do they justify strict liability for crimes that can put people away for such a long time?

6 thoughts on “I Often Wonder How the Left Justifies This”

  1. Most people on all sides of the aisle have a hard time with the notion that “their” side is capable of either malfeasance or gross incompetence. I was guilty of that myself, assuming that because Dubya and I were in basic agreement on some broad issues (ex liberating Iraq) that the administration wouldn’t have done things like BS the UN on WMD (“BS” being here distinct from Bourne Identity-style government conspiracy) or fail so spectacularly to make its case for intervention against muslim extremism.

    Likewise, leftish folks who believe in muscular regulation on “commonsense” issues like gun control aren’t very open to the idea that the police may have their own ideas about how to use their muscles, even when Obama is president.

  2. I find it interesting that the JUDGE who reviews the affidavit and approves the warrant does not have the duty to see that the Warrant is served with respect to the Constitution.

  3. The Constitution was destroyed during the New Deal. The 10th Amendment used to mean something until Congress and the Court decided to expand the Commerce Clause to include everything under the sun.

    Besides restoring the 10th, an Amendment to put an expiration date on every law would help (or at least keep Congress busy renewing laws instead of passing more bad ones). Reducing the amount of time Congress is in session and term-limits so they have to live with the crap they pass would also help.

    Finally, I always liked the Heinlein idea of a third house in Congress that does nothing but revoke laws – with a 1/3 majority.

  4. After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
    – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system!
    – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    Of course, that is using the realist point of view and assuming that government actions are actually guided by reason and intent. It is also possible that our laws are based on bureaucratic procedures or internal politicking between different factions, which can create irrational and unintended outcomes.

Comments are closed.