Thursday, April 3, 2014

SCOTUS gets one right

Yesterday's decision removing caps on aggregate campaign contributions  is a welcome act of Constitutional fealty and common sense.

One can already see the FHer howling in the usual venues.  As usual, it's predicated on certain core Leftist tenets that are untenable: that "rich people" and corporations need to be subjected to certain parameters on their societal functioning that no one else is.  This is crap for the reason that the category "rich people" is one of constant fluidity, with individuals moving in and out of it with regularity, and corporations are nothing but arrangements among people for making money by offering society something that is hopefully of value.

Leftists love to try to bulldoze  common-sense arguments with an attitude of "let's-cut-the-crap-everybody-knows-there's-a-muckety-muck-class-that-rides-roughshod-over-everyone-else," an assertion so sweeping as to be utterly unprovable - and, conversely, immune to quantitative refutation.  In other words, it's rhetorical cotton candy that disappears upon the first bite.

But another reason I like rulings like this one is that they remove some of that cumbersome complexity that leftism imposes on American life.  You see it in situations like this one, where "Under the old limit, a donor couldn’t give more than $123,200 to candidates, parties and political action committees in an election cycle. Of that, just $48,600 could go directly to candidates."  You also see it in the environmental realm, where cap-and-trade schemes immerse organizations, which should be employing their resources more productively, in arcane considerations of parts-per-million emissions content and dollar figures arbitrarily attached thereunto.  You certainly see it in the realm of "health care reform," with its eye-glazing array of subsidies, fines, networks and government-crafted plan gradations.  Hell, I'm not sure I could even explain what a "doughnut hole" is, or why one still needs supplemental Medicare insurance once one reaches the age of 65.  How about if people just save up during their working lives for their health-care needs for the next period, and buy a nice, simple catastrophic-care policy for the big stuff?

Freedom is elegantly simple by comparison.  You decide for yourself what you need or want, amass the capital to obtain it, find someone providing it at a price you find appealing, and transact.  And you get to support candidates vying for the opportunity to legislatively represent you with as much of your resources as you wish, and it's nobody's business whether you're rich, poor, or anywhere in between.


No comments:

Post a Comment