Power that government should not have
Show me that you can do what you are supposed to be doing already, then we'll talk
The state of New York is now officially going after natural gas stoves and furnaces. Many lawmakers in the United States Congress are having serious discussions about banning a popular social media app. Some California schools encourage gender-affirming care for even young children without parental permission or involvement. According to the federal (and some state) governments, it’s mandatory, in the name of inclusion, to allow men to use women’s facilities and for men to compete against women in sports.
The Department of Homeland Security recently sponsored an ill-fated initiative to police speech in the interests of preventing “disinformation.” The government, at all levels, imposed draconian COVID restrictions around the country during the pandemic. Do you own a car or truck fueled by gasoline or diesel fuel? Not for long, if the feds have their way.
The aphorism, "Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” has found no ground more fertile than contemporary American government, from DC to your hometown.
Mind you, not every rule or regulation that the government wants to foist on us is completely terrible. Most people are lousy at self-organizing and self-regulating. Just ask anyone who’s ever coached a recreational softball team. Consider, for yourself, the level of aggressive idiocy that’s on clear display during an average daily commute on our nation’s roads and highways.
You simply can’t operate a large and diverse society without some guardrails. The question is, how wide are we going to allow for the path between them?
How anyone answers this question depends on their own perspective on freedom. Some, on either end of the political spectrum, want to aggressively regulate others, especially those they don’t like. Others, like myself, take a more libertarian view. What you do is mostly your business, unless you insist on making it my business by dragging me into it.
You simply do not always get your way in a large and diverse society. That’s something that you must learn to live with. But not everyone is capable of that. And when those folks are looking for a cudgel to bludgeon those with whom they disagree, here come government bureaucrats.
For me personally, it comes down to this: when the government, at any level, succeeds in convincing me that they are capable of competently performing their clear statutory responsibilities, then we’ll talk about giving them something else to do.
If the government wants me to cede control to them over the kind of car I drive (which is not a responsibility that our constitution grants them), they can make a case that they are up to the task by fulfilling their statutory responsibility to secure our borders. Want to tell me who to hire, how much to pay them, and what kind of sign I can put up outside of my business? How about showing me that you can fill a few potholes first?
For those of us who believe that government, at all levels, is often guilty of odious levels of overreach, some relief may be on the horizon. This week, the Supreme Court announced that it will revisit a case that could, at least on the federal level, initiate a sea change in the current regulatory environment.
During their next term, the justices will reconsider a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gave deference to government regulators in interpreting statutes that they administer. In essence, if Congress has not clearly established the guardrails in a particular statute, in every conceivable circumstance, agency regulators get to make the calls on how to apply the statute as they see fit.