#63923 - government grants

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63923/

I'm pretty surprised that both she and her husband appear to think that this decision is his alone, since it's going to affect their shared finances pretty profoundly. (Although maybe he doesn't think it's his sole decision, maybe he just thinks he's so obviously right that his wife couldn't possibly disagree with him. Welcome to marriage!)

(Also, slavery, MSJ? Seriously?)

[wired]

I have a whole lot to say about this, but I don't think I'll have time to address it all.

Is it unconstitutional?
The word "unconstitutional" gets thrown around pretty loosely. Three levels that are generally discussed : (1) When the Constitution was written, would the statute have been considered permissible? (2) As the Constitution exists now and as it has been interpreted, would the statute be considered permissible? (3) Would the current Supreme Court consider the statute constitutional? No question ought to exist as to the two and three; Pell grants are a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

The first question is entirely different and definitely has no clear answer. However, the reader's husband is probably correct that if someone in Congress had brought up grants for education, that they would have been shot down pretty quickly. The only expressed power of Congress that could be considered connected to Pell Grants is the Commerce Clause. That Clause was much more narrowly defined. Even at its broadest moments, it was concerned with activities that directly affected tools of interstate commerce (like differentiated prices for in-state railways and intra-state railways). For a good discussion of early Commerce Clause understanding, see http://randybarnett.com/pdf/originalmeaning.pdf.

However, the first question, while academically useful, isn't particularly useful in modern decision making. The Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution quite often. After the New Deal, the Supreme Court has let fly just about every type of commercial legislation that Congress wants to pass. (A few exceptions exist, but they aren't very meaningful.) In other words, people have already had these arguments and one side lost in a big way. If her husband thinks that he needs to reject any benefit that Congress gives him that doesn't comport with the original understanding of the Constitution, more power to him. But he should definitely be more precise in why he is rejecting the aid instead of broadly saying, "This is unconstitutional."

MSJ's and CPM's Responses
Eh, I'm ambivalent about statements like "Taxation is slavery." I agree with the underlying notion while disagree with the attempt to rile people up using polemic language. That being said, if 51% of people voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a representative democracy, but it would still be slavery.

Also disagree big time with the "If you don't like it, you can leave," statement. That ignores serious realities. Many people don't have the opportunity to relocate and assuming they do, where do you think they ought to go to be free from taxes? There's parts of sub-Saharan Africa I guess they could relocate to. Other countries often have strict immigration laws that prevent an individual from moving elsewhere. People use this statement to relieve themselves from focusing on the actual issue.

CPM: "Without the Bill of Rights, a strict Constitutionalist would believe we had none of the rights contained therein. To believe either that we have only the rights contained therein and none others or that we have all rights except those restricted therein is equally foolish."

This ignores the alternative - strict Constitutionalists take seriously the idea that the federal government is one of very limited powers. Without the powers to infringe on people's rights, it could not violate those rights. That was why Alexander Hamilton argued the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Essentially, the Congress was to be so impotent that it would be unable to violate individuals' rights. With the wild expansion of Congress' powers under the New Deal, that idea went out the window. But, CPM fails to give original understanding Constitutionalists proper credit. Thus, they make actually see more individual rights while still thinking those rights need not be embodied in the Constitution.

CPM: "I don't think encouraging education via grants abuses the citizens (and if you do then I hope you also oppose public education in general since it amounts to much the same thing)." I don't think its the encouragement of grants the individual is concerned with, so much as how the funding for those grants is achieved. It's the forceful appropriation of someone's money which is then transferred to another person. The way CPM has framed it, you could make anything sound good. "I don't think protecting people from theft abuses the citizens," could be translated from, "We should kill all thieves." It's not the goal the individual has a problem with, it's the means.

The federal government doesn't have any public education institutions - those are institutions created by state governments. Even under modern Constitutional interpretation it would be perfectly acceptable to think that Congress shouldn't be able to give public grants while thinking state governments can or should. The Supreme Court and Congress have generally recognized that executing the education of citizens is a state prerogative.

[wired]

Oh, and I should note that my smoke-detector was going off a little as I read the question. I feel like this might be a well-written flame from a troll.

[Digit]

Regarding taxation, I think Wesley Snipes was one of those types that thought the IRS didn't have a legal right to exact taxes. I know he currently has less liberty as an inmate at the McKean Federal Correctional Institution near Lewis Run, PA until July 19, 2013. (source)

[Katya]

MSJ's and CPM's Responses
Eh, I'm ambivalent about statements like "Taxation is slavery." I agree with the underlying notion while disagree with the attempt to rile people up using polemic language. That being said, if 51% of people voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a representative democracy, but it would still be slavery.

I don't agree with the libertarian mindset, but I feel like I can generally see the logic behind it. (I'm starting with different premises, so I reach a radically different conclusion.)

However, equating paying taxes with slavery is so utterly insulting to anyone with a sense of history, it makes me completely discount the rest of their arguments. (I have no doubt that American society is the closest to slavery you have ever come, but that says a lot more about your life than it does about our system of government.)

[Katya]

Also, I'm as interested in the marriage dynamic as I am in the theory of government, if anyone wants to go that route.

[wired]

MSJ's and CPM's Responses
Eh, I'm ambivalent about statements like "Taxation is slavery." I agree with the underlying notion while disagree with the attempt to rile people up using polemic language. That being said, if 51% of people voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a representative democracy, but it would still be slavery.

I don't agree with the libertarian mindset, but I feel like I can generally see the logic behind it. (I'm starting with different premises, so I reach a radically different conclusion.)

However, equating paying taxes with slavery is so utterly insulting to anyone with a sense of history, it makes me completely discount the rest of their arguments. (I have no doubt that American society is the closest to slavery you have ever come, but that says a lot more about your life than it does about our system of government.)

Agreed, that's why I'm against the use of it. The degree of slavery is precisely the reason that saying taxation is like it is so abhorrent.

Now, you can try to parse things down so it looks more like slavery. For instance, if the tax rate is 35%, you work 100 hours for $100/hr, then you've made $10,000, and $3,500 of it has to go to the government. It's as though (notice that language) you have to work for the government 35 hours. But, that ignores your choices ex ante of how much you work, what type of work you do, your freedom in working, and the working conditions one is under.

[Katya]

On the general topic of libertarian fun, Planet Money (NPR's economics podcast) did a 25 minute piece to the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/ ... ummer-camp

(I thought the podcast was so interesting, I listened to it twice. I may do so again, actually.)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I'm pleased to see that most of the umbrage I was going to take has already been taken.

I'd just like to add that Mr. Husband isn't going to avoid benefiting from federal education money simply by turning down his own Pell grant. Chances are that many of the classes he's taking are partially funded by Pell grant and federal loan (paid by his class mates) — the class is only available to him at all because the government is paying for a big chunk of it, on behalf of his classmates. No institution of higher education in this country — public or private — could operate at the scale it does without federal aid.

Also, his professors probably funded their education through federal student aid, and without that aid, professors would be more scarce and thus much more expensive to hire. Therefore, the low cost of his tuition is also a direct result of this system. I could go on and on.

So, whether or not Husband realizes this, simply by attending an institute of higher education, he is necessarily taking advantage of this "unconstitutional" system in a number of ways. If this patriotic american really wants to be "worthy to restore the constitution," the best thing he could do is drop out of school entirely.

[Marduk]

Wired, I think you're missing the whole point; no tax that is applied equitably can be called slavery. One of the key components in slavery is precisely that it is applied disequitably; otherwise you can call just about any government action that deprives someone of time or property slavery. The draft, the legal system, etc.

The other argument that you didn't quite do justice to was saying that grants and public education funding are not equivalent. They both take money from certain individuals and give it to other groups. Under the given definition, they are both equally slavery. One cannot be for one and against the other.

Lastly, any individual can recognize that the Bill of Rights is not only protection FROM the government, it is also protection BY the government from other groups. A strict constitutionalist may grant the former, but has no protection against the latter (including other groups such as state and local government.)

Katya, I'd also like to discuss the marriage dynamic, and I have some things I'll point out later.

[Marduk]

Oh, on topic of the original question, I'd like to point out it is based on a flawed premise. The white horse prophecy is not scripture. Not even close.

[TheBlackSheep]

Exactly.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Katya, I think the marriage dynamic would be fascinating to discuss given more information. But we just don't know if this is a dynamic applied across the board. In my marriage, there are some topics my husband feels very strongly about and I don't. I let him win those arguments, even if I think he is odd, because I just don't care. For example, I can't really tell the difference between hard water and soft water. Or if I can, I don't care. But he claims that he can't stand soft water because he doesn't feel clean when he takes a shower. I think he is bonkers. But he really cares, and I don't. So, no matter what his decision - and his decision is currently that we don't even use the water softener that came with our house - I back up his decision. Other times, I get quite vocal about something he doesn't care about, so I win.

But that doesn't apply to even a significant part of our marriage. So if someone saw that one issue - just like we see this one issue - they might be a little concerned that I am mindlessly following my husband and feminists would jump all over it. And clearly, this appears to be a topic that this husband cares about A LOT, and she doesn't appear to understand very much (otherwise she wouldn't have written the question). So the question is, is this just an isolated thing, or does she just automatically "support my husband's choice no matter what" in everything? Because that would be a very dangerous thing indeed. Man or woman, no one should go without a voice in a marriage.

[Katya]

Katya, I think the marriage dynamic would be fascinating to discuss given more information. . . .

So the question is, is this just an isolated thing, or does she just automatically "support my husband's choice no matter what" in everything?

This is a good point, but maybe there's still a conversation to be had about compromise in marriage, generally? (Although that might be too vague a topic to discuss concretely.)

[Architect]

Katya, I think the marriage dynamic would be fascinating to discuss given more information. But we just don't know if this is a dynamic applied across the board. In my marriage, there are some topics my husband feels very strongly about and I don't. I let him win those arguments, even if I think he is odd, because I just don't care. For example, I can't really tell the difference between hard water and soft water. Or if I can, I don't care. But he claims that he can't stand soft water because he doesn't feel clean when he takes a shower. I think he is bonkers. But he really cares, and I don't. So, no matter what his decision - and his decision is currently that we don't even use the water softener that came with our house - I back up his decision. Other times, I get quite vocal about something he doesn't care about, so I win.

But that doesn't apply to even a significant part of our marriage. So if someone saw that one issue - just like we see this one issue - they might be a little concerned that I am mindlessly following my husband and feminists would jump all over it. And clearly, this appears to be a topic that this husband cares about A LOT, and she doesn't appear to understand very much (otherwise she wouldn't have written the question). So the question is, is this just an isolated thing, or does she just automatically "support my husband's choice no matter what" in everything? Because that would be a very dangerous thing indeed. Man or woman, no one should go without a voice in a marriage.

I agree, with one caveat: family finances probably shouldn't be allowed to fall into the category of "he cares a lot, but she doesn't really give a hoot, so he makes all the decisions." It's one thing for your husband to make the hard water decisions because you can't tell the difference; it's entirely another to not care about something that affects you in a significant way.

[Dragon Lady]

So, uh, I have no opinion on this in general, but I did want to point out that I thought MSJ's answer was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I highly doubt that she actually things that taxation equates slavery. Just sayin'.

[Whistler]

I agree with DL here. You takin' that seriously?

[Marduk]

I do, mostly because she's given many other very conservative answers, especially on the question of taxes. So either she's serious, or this is a farce she's been keeping up for a very long time.

[Katya]

I agree with DL here. You takin' that seriously?

The point of playing devil's advocate is to give a good critique of the position you actually agree with. (And if she's trying to do a Colbert-esque spoof of the far right, it's not spoofy enough.)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I took it seriously — It's a common tea party line of argument. For instance, Michelle Bachmann:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ntroversy/