I would make a slight modification. *Just* law is the only rightful arbiter of justice. Evil can and has inflicted on others under color of law.

Of course, that implies a higher power. We just might get to talk about Natural Law next week!

1. Limited powers of the federal government
2. Why people (and businesses) are interested in lobbying

If we adhered to #1, the gobs of money spent to influence the government in an effort to get it to exercise a power it doesn’t have would be pretty much wasted.

All of that to say this: It is not government’s job to make everyone successful or happy or free from turmoil or risk or strife.

It can’t do that anyway. It has neither the unlimited knowledge it would need nor the wisdom to carry it out.

All it can do is use the force of law and the threat of punishment (just or not) to take freedoms away or protect them. It is not to take from one group of people to give to another.

The only thing that matters is that we progress forward as a nation, together. I think the only real differences here are between what we value individually. For me, that is freedom with a government that acts in the best interest of society, commerce, and the environment.

I see those three points above as things we could all pretty much agree on, no? Regulations are meant to protect and serve; qualitatively assessing them involves a benefit/burden analysis on all parties, be they affected directly or indirectly.

I also like the concept of State and Municipal rights, as allowed for by the U.S. 10th Amendment in that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Lastly, I strongly believe in enacting voluntary guidelines before things necessarily can go awry.

That’s why we MUST ask the question WHY corporations are spending so much money on lobbying.

What do they have to gain?

When we identify that incentive, the question becomes this: Should we regulate the effects of that incentive (the symptoms), or do we remove the incentive altogether?

One solution (and I bet dollars to donuts that it would be Obama’s first choice) might be to restrict lobbying by corporations first and executives (who are voters, too) — which is in effect restricting freedom of speech and to petition the government, both of which are protected by the 1st Amendment.

However, the truth of the matter is that there is a solution that embraces freedom, costs less, and works better anyway. Just don’t look for it to come from Obama (or, in fairness, any of the current major presidential candidates), because they have too much to gain politically by feeding the animosity caused by the people’s hardships that keep them from analyzing the issue objectively.

” Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.”

Specifically regarding Obama’s proposals to update regulations – They are always being updated, so this is nothing new. They are being updated and influenced by the very corporations politicians are elected by denouncing through massive lobbying efforts and political contributions.

Government’s response to that has been to regulate political financial contributions (and speech! Speech!), but the money that is spent on lobbying has increased over the past few decades.

Why is that? Why would they think that’s worth it?

It’s important that we answer that question, because it allows us to address the root cause and not the effect — and without limiting the freedoms of individuals and the noble aspects of the free market, as we have, and as Obama’s record and rhetoric demonstrates he will continue to do.

This is something I may have to address later in my series on economics, but it’s food for thought in the meantime.