Foolish Liberals Trust Government

"Doug is too stupid to realize that legislation already created the federal agencies and granted them regulatory authority defined by the scope of their jurisdiction." -- Neurotic Liberal Tom

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It is amazing when you see the liberal left, often characterized by dimwits like liberal Tom, dig deep into their complete ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, while proclaiming their devotion to government tyranny.

Tom's recent exhibition of complete lunacy came as a result of his personality misfires over a post I recently published, Verizon Sues FCC Over Unconstitutional Net Neutrality.

Tom believes I am off my rocker regarding net neutrality, while he fails to even understand what I am saying about the issue. The conditioning people like Tom has received from the indoctrination methods of the progressive left has rendered him incapable of reasoning outside the scope of his ignorant love and trust of the federal government, fueled by his misguided belief in collectivism.

The federal government does not have the authority to regulate the Internet. There is no place in the Constitution that enables the federal government to regulate private industries, such as an information system such as the Internet. The only way the federal government can gain the authority to regulate the Internet would be through a constitutional amendment, which must be ratified by 3/4 of the States. In other words, in order to legally have the power to regulate the Internet (or any other private industry, for that matter. . . i.e. health care), the federal government must ask the States for the permission to have such authority through the process of a constitutional amendment.

Tom disagrees, hence his quote above about the legislative branch granting those authorities to the FCC.

Basically, Tom's argument is that the FCC, which is a part of the federal government, has the authority because the legislative branch, which is part of the federal government, granted to the FCC the authority. In other words, he is saying the federal government has the right to crack down on private industries because the federal government said it could.

Talk about unchecked powers.

Tom, then, assumes that since I believe the FCC's power to regulate is unconstitutional, I believe that industries should be left to run wild, to do whatever they want, screwing the public at every turn. Tom then uses the airline industry to illustrate his point: "Start with, say, 5 airlines. One stops spending money on repairs, starts killing people.. and consumers stop flying the tragic skies. Then there are 4 companies.. and then 3.. and then 2.. and then you have the United States resembling some third world nation where actually certifying the pilots is optional."

Tom's absurdity has reached new levels.

Liberal Tom's thought process would have credence if one was to suspend the belief that individual members of the public would do something to stop such madness, or that States would apply proper regulatory measures.

Let's back up for a moment. The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government. The federal government was created by the States, through the U.S. Constitution, by the States granting to the federal government some of their own powers so that the new federal government may protect, preserve, and promote the union of states. The States, however, did not give the federal government all of their powers. The States reserved for themselves all of the powers that they did not grant to the federal government (see 10th Amendment). This would mean that by eliminating unconstitutional governmental agencies the power of regulation would not be lost. In order to keep customers the industries would abide by the wishes of the consumers, and the States have the power to regulate each of these industries all they wish. The States, being closer to the people, however, would be on a much shorter leash as compared to the federal government, while also being constrained by the other States in the sense of competition. In other words, if one State regulates unfairly, businesses will simply move to States that lighten the regulatory load. If one State regulates too lightly, and the public has a problem with it, the populations will move to the States that regulate more heavily. Therefore, the very presence of the fact that the States are competing for businesses and population to reside in their State constrains the State from regulating too heavily, or too lightly.

The federal government has no such constraints.

The only constraints the federal government has (which really aren't constraints at all) are federal agencies, a federal judiciary, a federal legislature, and a federal executive branch.

Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

Tom's argument is that the danger to the consumers should net neutrality not be put into place is that because only one company owns the bandwidth that comes to your house, they can dictate anything they want to you. So, he would like to replace that with only one federal government to regulate it, as if the one government can be trusted over the one company.

Tom, assuming as he normally does, believes I don't understand the details of what net neutrality is about, when in truth it is he that does not understand what the Constitution is about. As much as he doesn't trust the tyrannical power a single corporation wields when left unregulated, I don't trust the tyrannical power a single federal government wields when left unchecked.

Therefore, the power to regulate our lives, our businesses, and our speech does not belong to the federal government. But that does not mean the power to regulate disappears with the wind.

Let me give an example to help liberals, and some of you conservatives too, understand.

The danger of the Obama Health Care law is that when you give the federal government control over the entire health care industry, the importance of care becomes secondary, and the importance of cost becomes primary. No innovation will take place because the government will have nobody to compete against. However, that does not mean that government may not ever have anything to do with health care - it only means that the federal government may not have anything to do with health care.

When I defend the push to repeal Obamacare, or explain my disagreements with Obamacare, Tom is always quick to remind me that my son used a governmental health care system when he was unemployed and diagnosed with cancer.

First, that was my son's own personal choice. Second, we tried to convince my son to take the private route, even willing to take out loans to pay for his care, but he decided to go with public care. Third, the agency used was a state agency, something that is completely constitutional (minus the federal funds the system receives, another unconstitutional practice that must stop). The federal government does not have the authority to regulate or control health care, but the States can have a system of that nature if they desire. Personally, I have no problem with health care assistance programs run by States, but prefer that they are temporary assistance programs that cannot be a lifetime entitlement.

In short, the States have the authority (10th Amendment), and the federal government does not.

So, by killing net neutrality, it does not let the Internet industry do as they please, it only transfers the responsibility of regulation to the consumer, and the States.

Tom, unfortunately, is too conditioned by progressive rhetoric, to realize this.

"Deregulation" at the federal level is an important tool to return us to Constitutional restraints on the federal government, while encouraging the free market, and the States, to ensure the industries act in accordance with the wishes of the people. This means that almost all federal agencies are either unconstitutional in their very existence, or that at least much of their activities are unconstitutional. The CIA, as Tom tried to use in his attack, does not qualify as unconstitutional (or at least most of it is not unconstitutional - but that's for a whole different article), because it is in line with one of the federal government's powers: protecting the States from invasion (Article IV, Section 4).

Oh, and one other thing. Tom also wrote: He [Doug] still doesn't understand which party it is that's trying to "compromise free speech". He thinks it's the government, rather than bandwidth providers.

Freedom of Speech, as indicated in the First Amendment, is there to protect free speech from the federal government, not corporations. It is our responsibility to maintain corporations through our consumer activities, and through the States. The whole point of protecting our free speech rights, as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, was to ensure the government did not compromise free speech.

Once again, Tom revealed his complete ignorance.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary