Nullification...thoughts?

[gunderwood]

Here is an interesting book (haven't read it): http://mises.org/store/product.aspx?ProductID=10393

The topic of what are you doing given the political mess we are in is a common topic around here (and for good reason). Here is one potential answer at the state level. Questions:

1. Thoughts on the whole idea/history/issues of nullification.

2. If you think it is good idea, how do we pressure our VA reps to move forward with it (in some cases like healthcare they already are, but there is so much else we could do)?

[WRW]

The mere threat of withholding funding by the Federal Government has caused most States to buckle. Personally I don't think of that as a valid function of the Federal Government, but most seem to accept it.

What I'm saying is that it would take greater resolve than any current State leaders are capable of...IMHO. God bless South Carolina for using it as a bargaining chip, but has no other State attempt using it?

[Diomed]

I think nullification is great, and I am not aware of anything in the Constitution prohibiting its exercise by the States (I am not at all a constitutional scholar though, so perhaps I'm wrong). Unfortunately the beatdown of 1861-1865 means no one is really willing to make a serious play with it.

Properly employed it would certainly be a strong tool to help rebalance the equation, though not a panacea.

[zephyp]

Indeed. The states have sat at the teat of the feds for far too long. As far as whether or not I'm a Constitutional scholar - I'm not - BUT - I can read and thats all it takes. Why do people think you have to have a law degree to read and understand the Constitution. The enumerated powers are clearly stated and the 10th sums it up...several states have the right idea. Its a matter of standing firm and not jumping when the feds say boo.

AZ is a good example with their immigration law...much better examples are the states asserting their rights with firearms manufactured within the state. If the states stick to their guns it might get difficult but there are a couple of ways to fight that...if the feds withhold funds I'm sure some slick people can find ways to fix that. Each state is made up of taxpayers who pay state and federal taxes along with other sundries.

If it gets to that point then the state has a choice. Bend to the feds or reroute taxes from its constituents meant for the feds to the state coffers...I'm sure it could be done...that would cause other problems which would lead to other solutions...

There is a way for the states to stand up to this...merely takes some thought and cojones...but of course all of this is merely hypothetical rhetoric...

[WRW]

Indeed. The states have sat at the teat of the feds for far too long. As far as whether or not I'm a Constitutional scholar - I'm not - BUT - I can read and thats all it takes. Why do people think you have to have a law degree to read and understand the Constitution. The enumerated powers are clearly stated and the 10th sums it up...several states have the right idea. Its a matter of standing firm and not jumping when the feds say boo.

AZ is a good example with their immigration law...much better examples are the states asserting their rights with firearms manufactured within the state. If the states stick to their guns it might get difficult but there are a couple of ways to fight that...if the feds withhold funds I'm sure some slick people can find ways to fix that. Each state is made up of taxpayers who pay state and federal taxes along with other sundries.

If it gets to that point then the state has a choice. Bend to the feds or reroute taxes from its constituents meant for the feds to the state coffers...I'm sure it could be done...that would cause other problems which would lead to other solutions...

There is a way for the states to stand up to this...merely takes some thought and cojones...but of course all of this is merely hypothetical rhetoric...

There is strength in numbers. 2/3 comes to mind...which is why individual States need to come out in support of those States that are asserting their rights rather than waiting to see how the case plays out in Federal Court.

[gunderwood]

The mere threat of withholding funding by the Federal Government has caused most States to buckle. Personally I don't think of that as a valid function of the Federal Government, but most seem to accept it.

What I'm saying is that it would take greater resolve than any current State leaders are capable of...IMHO. God bless South Carolina for using it as a bargaining chip, but has no other State attempt using it?

Ya, that is the double edged sword. The Federal government shouldn't be able to tax us and then withhold the funds because they don't like our opinions. That is a structure ripe for abuse. 10th Amendment challenges only really take off when the Feds are out of funds and are giving the States unfunded mandates.

Withholding Federal funding is a blight on the system and weakens Constitutional government by essentially revoking one of the checks and balances outside of the Federal level.

[gunderwood]

Indeed. The states have sat at the teat of the feds for far too long. As far as whether or not I'm a Constitutional scholar - I'm not - BUT - I can read and thats all it takes. Why do people think you have to have a law degree to read and understand the Constitution. The enumerated powers are clearly stated and the 10th sums it up...several states have the right idea. Its a matter of standing firm and not jumping when the feds say boo.

AZ is a good example with their immigration law...much better examples are the states asserting their rights with firearms manufactured within the state. If the states stick to their guns it might get difficult but there are a couple of ways to fight that...if the feds withhold funds I'm sure some slick people can find ways to fix that. Each state is made up of taxpayers who pay state and federal taxes along with other sundries.

If it gets to that point then the state has a choice. Bend to the feds or reroute taxes from its constituents meant for the feds to the state coffers...I'm sure it could be done...that would cause other problems which would lead to other solutions...

There is a way for the states to stand up to this...merely takes some thought and cojones...but of course all of this is merely hypothetical rhetoric...

It is entirely possible that a law degree makes you uniquely unqualified for anything involving common sense. Arguing over the place of commas, when it was mostly a matter of style, while ignoring the boat-load of secondary evidence from notes, letters, and publications as to the original meaning is mind boggling. The language changes, get over it. Read the other sources from the era and the meanings aren't hard to find. Interstate commerce does not mean regulating an individual farmer who is growing corn for his own personal use within his own State! (the first broad (abusive) interpretation of that clause IIRC)

[VBshooter]

IMHO the states should not be deriving their funds from the federal government at all..The federal, state and local guvmnets all needs to be shrunk back down to the basics allowed/needed in the Constitution only.. No more agencies not needed, no more Union government workers to sit on their ass all day and get paid for nothing than actually needed, No more freaking Czars to suggest BS we don't need because the President is a dumb ass,no more fancy expense accounts for Guvemnt officials (all of them}, and ahost of other things that would free up the states to be sovereign again. If we stopped passing out cash like tootsie rolls at Halloween we would want for nothing in this country,Changes like this and maybe a common man would stand a chance to be a Congressional member and actually do the job correctly.

[chfaunce]

IMHO the states should not be deriving their funds from the federal government at all..The federal, state and local guvmnets all needs to be shrunk back down to the basics allowed/needed in the Constitution only.. No more agencies not needed, no more Union government workers to sit on their ass all day and get paid for nothing than actually needed, No more freaking Czars to suggest BS we don't need because the President is a dumb ass,no more fancy expense accounts for Guvemnt officials (all of them}, and ahost of other things that would free up the states to be sovereign again. If we stopped passing out cash like tootsie rolls at Halloween we would want for nothing in this country,Changes like this and maybe a common man would stand a chance to be a Congressional member and actually do the job correctly.

Now, now, that's not very hopey changey of you

[Taggure]

no more Union government workers to sit on their ass all day and get paid for nothing than actually needed,

So what happens when all these folks go into the Unemployment office or the DMV means a longer wait or they automate the processing on a Self-Help website? Hell the DMV is already doing that with your Drivers License as I did not even have to go in to get it renewed. Work Smarter and get rid of the fluff. Imagine the amount of money that the state would save. Now that the States are working smarter what about the folks that just lost their jobs? They need to find another job but where will they find jobs with benefits, pension plans, and high salaries; there are none to be had and since the illegals have all the lower level jobs, where do they go? Back to the Farm, The manufacturing company. The Farms are all run by big business and all the manufacturing is now overseas. Start a business on main street, good luck with that and getting the loans to start a new business.

To the nullification portion of this post: This looks like a tool of potential uses

[VBshooter]

Oh hell No,,I meant the "unneeded" ones which would only compronise 60 per cent or so.. Definitley need the proper services to run the place,, I guess my hopey changey is busted like my attitude after Obama and crew started their antics.I figure that those pathetic folks who actaully believe what Obama has to say should have enough hopey changey for all of us.

[gunderwood]

no more Union government workers to sit on their ass all day and get paid for nothing than actually needed,

So what happens when all these folks go into the Unemployment office or the DMV means a longer wait or they automate the processing on a Self-Help website? Hell the DMV is already doing that with your Drivers License as I did not even have to go in to get it renewed. Work Smarter and get rid of the fluff. Imagine the amount of money that the state would save. Now that the States are working smarter what about the folks that just lost their jobs? They need to find another job but where will they find jobs with benefits, pension plans, and high salaries; there are none to be had and since the illegals have all the lower level jobs, where do they go? Back to the Farm, The manufacturing company. The Farms are all run by big business and all the manufacturing is now overseas. Start a business on main street, good luck with that and getting the loans to start a new business.

To the nullification portion of this post: This looks like a tool of potential uses

That is the fundamental problem with all government make work schemes. They retard progress. You create a crisis when you put off change. History is replete with examples.

There use to be a thriving buggy whip industry, there isn't any more thanks to the auto-mobile. I was just watching Modern Marvels over lunch and they were covering mechanized harvesters. While certain things can't be harvested by machines, lots of stuff can. The same thing has been going on for centuries, machines at first making jobs easier and later replacing human labor.

This is not a bad thing.

The whole argument about what will people do is false. Never in the history of human civilization has there been a lack of work to do. Always, always, there is too much work to do. Certainly, machines replacing humans creates short term disruptions in the market, but in the long term labor is freed up to pursue other activities. Consider the following:

1. Labor hours. Besides the first world countries, most people work very long hours, sun rise to sun set and if possible longer. Children are required to work or else they go hungry. This use to be true in America and other countries as well, but it is no longer needed. We reached a point where our basic needs and even our desires were so well met that we decided as a society to work less. The Europeans are ahead of us in that sense, for better or worse. At some point you have enough and would rather spend your time on hobbies, relaxing or other leisure activities. You do this at the expense of producing more value which you could exchange for value of another kind (food, housing, PS3, firearms, you name it). Many Americans only have one job. When I get done at work, I may work around the house, but I don't head off to my second job.

Generally, when human needs and desires are well met, people decide they would rather work less.

2. Tools always help. Does anyone doubt that digging a hole with a shovel is significantly easier than digging it with your hands? The purpose of all tools is to make a job easier. In many cases it makes the work even possible. Without a wrench it is virtually impossible for me to remove certain bolts and work on my car. Tools replace human labor and this is good. I may have needed 5 men with shovels to dig my hole, but a single man with a backhoe can do it much faster and cheaper. Shall we go back to the washing board? Shall we do away with computers? Certainly, I can put many more people to work doing the calculations by hand!

Generally, tools always help. We create and use tools to reduce human labor and that is a good thing, but in the short term it does cause displacement.

3. 100% employment is the wrong goal. When ever the government tries to make work, it actually does the opposite. The ideal goal has been, still is and will always be maximum efficiency. I have been using extreme examples to get the point across and I shall continue here. The trucking industry moves goods great distances. Since we have people unemployed, why don't we make work for them by cutting the size of semis in half. Certainly the government makes such regulations (I think it is 80,000lbs right now). Certainly if they could only hold 40,000lbs per truck, we would need more truck drivers. Does anyone think this will do anything besides increase the cost of goods shipped? I now have to pay twice as many drivers to haul the same amount of goods! It gets worse, since the price of shipping went up, less things will be shipped! Thus, I have actually destroyed prosperity by doing so. Those goods which are no longer being shipped due to the rise in price, are not being used by customers. People are doing without something because it now costs too much.

Generally, any scheme to create work does the opposite. It destroys wealth and requires people to do the same task, but requires more labor to do it. Creating bureaucracies to regulate and enforce those regulations also falls here. It hurts, it can not help.

4. Population growth is a false economy (generally). A larger population requires more efficient means of doing everything or else it is unsustainable. Take food as an example. The amount of food needed for a health human being doesn't really change (approximately). If you had a lot of land and you decided to produce your own food on it, which part of the land would you plant? The least productive or the most productive? Of course, it would be the most productive because the more productive the land the less work you would have to do to feed your family. That would free up labor to do other things or grow excess food to sell. What if you had to double the food production to feed a larger family on the same land? You would have to more than double the work required and land used to support a doubling in your family size because each new unit of land you plant is less productive than the others. If they weren't, you would have used them instead of the other land when your family was half as large. Even if the land was equally productive, you would have rotated less often with a smaller family and that would have increased your yields. A larger population does yield more workers, but since your resources are not limitless, you must do more work to meet their basic needs.

Generally, as long as there is no resource restrictions (rare) you can increase your scale of operations linearly, but once you have any sort of resource limitation or reduction in production efficiency, you always end up with a non-linear work increase compared to your output...unless you create and use a new tool which increases your productivity.

5. You can not advance society without using tools (#2) to achieve maximum efficiency (#3) in every industry. How did we end up with all of the computer jobs we have now? They didn't exist a few generations ago. #4 showed you can't count on a increasing population to help you out because it puts strain on the limited resources. The only way to advance as a society is to free up capital and labor. That "excess" capital and labor can now be used for R&D, new industries, etc. You can only free capital and labor up by producing what you need more efficiently. If I want to dig my hole and it nominally would take a whole day to dig, but I accomplish another task in that same day (time is a resource and it is limited), I must find a way to dig the hole more efficiently. If the need to dig holes is sufficient, some people will invest their excess capital and labor into building and selling better tools to those who need to dig holes.

Generally, you can not have advanced industries without first finding ways to do less skilled/labor intensive tasks more efficiently. Computer jobs require extensive training. You will not be training for a computer job if you will starve in the mean time. Our children are no longer required to work and are freed up to go to school. They need that schooling to perform the skilled jobs of the future. Society advances.


Where will those people go? I don't know for sure, but currently they are taking capital and labor out of the system and wasting on non-productive means. Give it back to the free market and you just freed up a ton of capital and labor. What will our greatest minds do with it? I am too ignorant to know, but it will exceed anything we can dream up. It already has for generations past, ours is not so certain because we are destroying the forces which made it possible. There is not some secret to our success.

Wherever liberty is found, prosperity soon follows. Limit liberty and you limit your future because liberty naturally does the above.

[zephyp]

@Spence - yup, return everything according to the Constitution...