A proper and principled military policy would reserve the might of our armed forces for defense of our own territory, including embassies abroad — but not nebulously defined “American interests.” It would seek neither to police the world nor to impose our civic values by force.
With all the storm and stress over President Trump’s temporary ban on citizens of several countries wishing to enter the United States, we may well wonder whether a country professing to be a land of the free has any moral justification for enforcing border controls. It is sometimes argued that international borders are artificial and unjustifiable limitations on one of the most fundamental of human rights, the right to freedom of movement. But are they?
With President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare now a priority in the GOP-led Congress, it’s worth asking why ObamaCare — as well as other government-sponsored healthcare initiatives, including Medicare and Medicaid — should be such a contentious topic.
To understand the workings of government, it is necessary to acknowledge the mostly unseen hand of conspiracy. Only seldom do historians mention it, and even less the majority of commentators on current events; the very word “conspiracy” has acquired overtones of hysteria and emotionalism. To be styled a “conspiracy theorist” is perhaps the ultimate reproach in media-driven discourse. Yet conspiracies, difficult to detect and even more difficult to prove, are as natural an element of politics as algae is of pond water.
Now that this year’s presidential election has delivered the Oval Office to maverick Republican Donald Trump, liberals — who customarily cheer what they call “the democratic process,” as long as it gives the results that they want — have suddenly discovered the oft-maligned Electoral College.
Under federalism, the national government exists entirely by the license of the states, and its powers are derived from theirs, and not the reverse. This was (and remains) in stark contrast with most other national governments, wherein states, provinces, departments, oblasts, or other political subdivisions are created by a pre-existing strong central government.
Many who understand how a planned economy — wage and price controls, government-mandated production goals, industry standards, subsidies, and the like — destroys market productivity still make an exception with regard to one indispensable economic good: money. But why should money be an exception?
Under the Constitution only those powers that are enumerated — that is, granted explicitly — are legitimate. Otherwise put, the federal government has no authority unless it is enumerated in the Constitution; all other aspects of human conduct that may be subject to government control are understood to be reserved to state and local governments — or to be outside the realm of government authority altogether, reserved unto individuals to act upon as they see fit.