And then we look at another set of processes–political processes–and we talk about their imperfections. There’s rent-seeking, there’s corruption, there’s inefficiency. And I think that’s where we are now. We’re in a moment where people are starting to realize the dangers of relying too heavily on the state to solve our problems.
The rise of figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the political sphere is a reflection of this realization. These are individuals who have achieved great success in the private sector and are now turning their attention to the inefficiencies and failures of government. Musk, in particular, has been vocal about his skepticism of government spending and his desire to streamline and cut wasteful programs.
The Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] is an intriguing concept that has captured the imagination of many Americans. The idea of a government agency dedicated to cutting spending and improving efficiency is appealing to those who are tired of bloated bureaucracy and wasteful government programs. While the DOGE is still in the planning stages, the fact that it is being seriously considered is a sign of the changing attitudes towards government intervention.
The focus on the deficit and the push to eliminate government agencies are also signs of this shift in thinking. People are starting to realize that the government cannot be relied upon to solve all of our problems and that sometimes, less government is actually better.
It’s a challenging and exciting time to be a libertarian or a classical liberal. While we may not always agree on the best approach to achieving our goals, we can all agree that a healthy skepticism of centralized power is essential for a free and prosperous society. The current moment in America is a reminder of the dangers of government overreach and the importance of protecting individual freedom and economic liberty.
As we move forward into the new year, it will be interesting to see how these ideas and principles continue to shape the political landscape. Will the Department of Government Efficiency become a reality? Will Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy be able to make a real difference in government spending and efficiency? Only time will tell, but one thing is for certain: the conversation about the role of government in our lives is far from over. The debate over the role of the state in society has been ongoing for centuries, with proponents of both limited government and expansive government making compelling arguments. The original libertarian impulse in the American Constitution was to establish a model of limited government with specifically enumerated powers for the Federal government to exercise. The idea was to restrict the state from overreaching and infringing upon individual liberties.
However, over time, there has been a growing sentiment that a more powerful state is needed to address complex societal problems. The argument goes that a powerful state, under the control of a benevolent leader, can achieve great things and make positive changes in society. This desire for a powerful state is often driven by a disdain for politics and a belief that a strong government can bypass the gridlock and inefficiency of the political process.
But, as history has shown, creating a powerful state comes with its own set of risks and challenges. The most important political principle, as pointed out by many critics, is to never make a sword so powerful and sharp that you wouldn’t want to see it wielded by your worst enemy. The temptation to create a powerful government agency, like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to streamline government activities and cut out inefficiencies is alluring. However, the reality is that politics, with all its complexities and competing interests, often hinders any meaningful reform.
Take the example of means-testing Social Security and Medicare, a common-sense solution that could save the government billions of dollars. Despite its obvious benefits, the political process has failed to implement this reform due to various obstacles like filibusters and voting dynamics. This highlights the inherent challenges of trying to bypass the political process and rely on a powerful state to enact change.
In a recent debate on infrastructure spending, the idea of creating a committee of experts to prioritize infrastructure projects based on merit rather than political influence was proposed. While this may seem like a logical solution to improve infrastructure, the reality is that politics will always play a role in decision-making, and circumventing the political process is easier said than done.
Ultimately, the allure of a powerful state to solve societal problems must be tempered with an understanding of the limitations and risks involved. While the idea of a leaner, more efficient government is appealing, the reality of navigating the political landscape and implementing meaningful reforms is far more complex. As history has shown, the balance between limited government and a powerful state is a delicate one, and careful consideration must be given to the potential consequences of expanding the state’s authority. He wanted to reduce the size and scope of the department, and many people cheered him on, thinking that it would lead to less government interference in education. However, as Michael Munger pointed out, the Department of Education is not just about funding. It also enforces regulations and statutes that are crucial for the functioning of the education system.
The idea of getting rid of the Department of Education may sound appealing to some, but the reality is much more complex. The department oversees a wide range of programs and initiatives that impact millions of students and teachers across the country. Without the Department of Education, there would be a significant gap in oversight and coordination at the federal level.
Furthermore, the issue of bureaucracy cannot be overlooked. Bureaucracies exist to carry out the functions of government, and simply cutting them without addressing the underlying statutes and regulations they enforce would not lead to meaningful change. In the case of the IRS, for example, getting rid of the agency would not solve the problem of a complicated tax code.
Ultimately, the debate over government agencies and bureaucracies is not just about cutting budgets or eliminating departments. It is about determining the proper role of government in society and ensuring that it functions effectively and efficiently. This requires a thoughtful and nuanced approach that takes into account the complexities of governance and policy implementation. Simply going through budgets and making cuts without considering the broader implications is not a viable solution. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This principle is crucial in determining the appropriate role of government in various activities and programs. It serves as a check on the expansion of federal power and ensures that decisions are made at the most local level possible.
When considering the role of the Department of Education, for example, one must ask whether education is an activity that the state should be involved in. While education is undoubtedly important and essential for the development of society, it is worth considering whether the federal government is the most effective and efficient entity to oversee education policy and funding.
The argument for eliminating the Department of Education is not necessarily about devaluing education, but rather about questioning the role and scope of federal involvement in education. By adhering to the principles of the 10th Amendment and questioning the necessity of federal intervention in education, we can ensure that decisions are made at the most appropriate level of government.
Furthermore, the growth of the Administrative State, with regulations imposed by non-elected officials, raises concerns about the accountability and transparency of government actions. The increasing power of bureaucratic agencies can lead to a disconnect between government actions and the will of the people.
In order to address these issues, it is essential to promote a culture of accountability and adherence to constitutional principles. By questioning the necessity of government involvement in various activities and programs, we can ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of society as a whole.
Ultimately, the goal should be to uphold the principles of limited government and individual liberty, while also recognizing the importance of certain government functions. By reevaluating the role of government in various activities and programs, we can work towards a more efficient and effective system that is responsive to the needs of the people. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution is a crucial component of the American system of government, outlining the principle of Federalism. It states that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or the people. This division of powers between the Federal government and the states is essential to maintaining the balance of power and protecting individual liberties.
One area where the Federal government has overstepped its bounds, according to some critics, is in the realm of education. The Department of Education, established in 1979, is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution and therefore should be eliminated, according to some proponents of limited government. They argue that education is primarily a state and local responsibility, and the Federal government’s involvement in education has led to unnecessary bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Similarly, the Department of Commerce has come under scrutiny for its expansive reach and questionable activities. With 13 different bureaus and a broad mandate to promote economic growth and international trade, the Department of Commerce has been accused of overreaching and engaging in activities that are not appropriate for the Federal government. Critics argue that many of the Department’s functions could be more efficiently handled by the private sector or at the state level.
Despite these criticisms, the prospect of abolishing the Department of Education or the Department of Commerce remains unlikely. Political forces, inertia, and vested interests all work against significant government reform. However, there are examples in history where major changes have been made, even in the face of strong opposition.
One such example is the closure of military bases following the end of the Cold War. The United States found itself with numerous military installations that were no longer necessary, leading to calls for their closure. Despite the political challenges involved in closing military bases, a commission was established to review all bases and identify the least needed ones for closure. This process, while not perfect, demonstrated that change is possible even in entrenched government institutions.
In conclusion, while the elimination of the Department of Education or the Department of Commerce may seem like a daunting task, history has shown that major reforms can occur under the right circumstances. The principles of limited government, Federalism, and individual liberty outlined in the 10th Amendment continue to guide discussions about the proper role of government in American society. It remains to be seen whether the political will and momentum will coalesce to bring about meaningful change in these areas. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of the iconic comedy film, Young Frankenstein. Directed by the legendary Mel Brooks, the movie is considered by many to be one of the funniest films of modern times. With its clever humor, memorable characters, and hilarious scenes, Young Frankenstein has become a classic in the world of comedy.
One of the stars of the film, Teri Garr, recently passed away, leaving fans of the movie and supporters of her work mourning her loss. Garr’s portrayal of Inga, the beautiful and bubbly assistant to Dr. Frankenstein, added a touch of charm and humor to the film, making her a beloved character among audiences.
As we reflect on the legacy of Young Frankenstein and the talented individuals who brought it to life, it serves as a reminder of the power of comedy to bring joy and laughter to people’s lives. In times of hardship and uncertainty, a good laugh can provide much-needed relief and comfort, and films like Young Frankenstein continue to stand the test of time as timeless classics that bring smiles to viewers of all ages.
So, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Young Frankenstein and remember the talented Teri Garr, let us take a moment to appreciate the laughter and joy that comedy brings into our lives. May we continue to cherish the memories and moments of hilarity that films like Young Frankenstein provide, and may we never underestimate the healing power of laughter in times of sorrow and adversity. In a recent conversation between Michael Munger and Russ Roberts, the topic of government power and executive authority was brought to light in a fascinating and somewhat alarming way. Munger brought up the idea of the Department of Government Efficiency, a fictional entity with no building or power, highlighting the theatrical and comic nature of the government and its operations.
However, the conversation took a more serious turn when the discussion turned to President Trump and his use of executive authority. Roberts expressed concern about Trump’s disregard for the system of checks and balances and his tendency to use his power aggressively, such as in his defamation suits against news organizations. This led to a discussion about the potential dangers of unchecked executive authority and the erosion of norms and dignity in the office of the President.
Munger raised the point that libertarians, while often in favor of limited government, should be wary of expanding government power even if it aligns with their beliefs. The idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend should not apply when it comes to giving the government more power, as it could be used in ways that go against libertarian principles.
The conversation also touched on Elon Musk and his competitive nature, as well as his potential for wielding power in a similar way to Trump. However, Munger suggested that Musk’s impatience and short attention span may prevent him from making lasting changes in the government.
Overall, the conversation highlighted the delicate balance of power in government and the importance of upholding principles even in the face of tempting opportunities to achieve one’s goals. The discussion served as a reminder of the potential dangers of unchecked executive authority and the need for vigilance in preserving the system of checks and balances. In a recent social media post on Truth Social, former President Donald Trump claimed to have the largest mandate in 129 years. This statement has left many puzzled, as it is unclear what exactly he means by this. While it is true that Trump did not achieve the largest popular vote or Electoral College win, he may be referring to the total number of votes cast in the election.
However, Trump’s assertion that this supposed mandate entitles him to unchecked power over Congress is concerning. By suggesting that both the House and Senate should blindly follow his appointments without the usual advise-and-consent process, Trump is effectively disregarding the system of checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. This raises questions about the potential dangers of concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch.
The idea of expanding executive power is not a new one, with some advocating for a doctrine of executive power that would ensure a Republican stronghold on the presidency for years to come. However, the implications of such a shift in power dynamics are worrisome, as it could undermine the principles of democracy and lead to unchecked authority.
Looking back at history, the 1896 election between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan serves as a reminder that mandates have varied in size over the years. While McKinley’s victory was significant, it was not as substantial as Reagan’s landslide win in 1984. This highlights the fact that claims of having the largest mandate in over a century may not hold much weight in the grand scheme of things.
Ultimately, Trump’s call for unquestioned obedience from Congress raises important questions about the balance of power in government. It serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of democracy and ensuring that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. As we navigate the complexities of governance, it is crucial to remain vigilant against any attempts to erode the foundations of our democracy.
