MsTong

A Writer

【點評】Jeffrey A. Tucker:Supreme Court Targets the Real Enemy

這裏轉載點評的文字為此説提供了一些具體數字。也許值得看一看想一想好好參考一下的吧?

【余案:日前本欄曾經討論過所謂深層政府的是非利弊,指出任何政權無論其初衷爲何,總會有既得利益者及階層的出現與發展。政府工作人員無論入職時如何信誓旦旦效忠於憲政民衆也罷,手中的權力一旦失去監察檢討,必定會成爲尋租的利器久之必定南轅北轍跟入職宣誓毫無關係,衹是爲了保證自家飯碗如何永續而已。其中提到華府之所以成爲驢黨票倉的原因也很簡單,因爲鼓吹大政府、承諾必定將政府工作人員(更受到工會保護)的切身利益當作頭等大事來考量就是驢黨啊。老川之所以遭到牠們的一致仇恨,也跟兩者所持理念關聯不那麽直接(左瘋作爲未必是牠們的真心價值信仰),所起作用的影響歸根結蒂還是既得利益。老川作爲資本家所作的成本考量直接觸動了牠們的奶酪。儘管這時候的老川已經成爲選民的管家,斤斤計較的動力來自於如何掂量納稅者的荷包。他一開口就說要清理華府沼澤,老天,那還得了?都清理了,誰還願意幫你幹活兒呢?這裏轉載點評的文字為此説提供了一些具體數字。也許值得看一看想一想好好參考一下的吧?】

Supreme Court Targets the Real Enemy By Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute. He is the author of five books, including "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty."
July 1, 2022 Updated: July 4, 2022 News Analysis

The flurry of rulings from the Supreme Court has everyone’s head spinning. The most significant among them, even if it doesn’t capture all the headlines, is West Virginia v. EPA. The majority opinion is impressive, but the part I found truly wonderful is the concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
This is where we see things headed, toward a major and much-welcome curbing of the power of the administrative state.

【余案:這個概念「the power of the administrative state.」值得提出來説一説。人們經常聽到「police state」這一説法就知道兩者互相關聯。本來「state」管理者的總稱就是所謂的「state administration」。爲了防止「管理者」坐大於是提出「三權分立」來使得政府内部權力之間互相監督制衡。一旦警察「獨大」了,這個國家就成爲「police state」。同樣道理「管理者」獨大,國家就成爲「the administrative state」了。有些華語譯家譯成「行政國家」。大概也是沒辦法的辦法。但是聼上去不像「警察國家」那麽「磣」耳,而其實質完全一樣。中國大外宣正在鼓吹的三權「合作」本質上就是這樣一種思路。最關鍵的是對政體的定性定義。換言之,是必須明白這個國家是誰的,誰纔是國家的主人。你不是號稱「公僕」嗎?若僕人「合作」起來對付「主人」(憲政民主國家的選民),結果會怎樣,邏輯上道理上不是很多人能夠釐清。實際感受就很直接。例如英殖時期的香港,自從議會引入民選議員,權力就不能爲所欲爲(宗主國本身具備的民主機制並未算在其内)。預算案能否通過得需要「行政」機構負責向議會(立法機關,原來的殖民地政府備詢機構)游説解釋力求得到認可。否則就推倒重來。這對於殖民者來説當然很難受。於是新的中國殖民者就毀掉這個機制,鼓吹「合作」。結果就是「the administrative state」的出現,最終使香港成爲一個「police state」。權力不能得到制衡的結果是什麽,任何有過這種經歷的成人大概都能直接感受到的。儘管不一定有這樣的理論自覺。很多人並不認爲白左勢力跟赤納粹沆瀣一氣的現象其來有自。覺得「白左」遭到污名化啦,人家天真可愛綠茶婊一枚,跟凶神惡煞的極權政府不能相提并論吧。這幾天看到不少討論,如果有時間或者會認真説説這個話題。我一直相信憲政民主必須同時存在「左、右」不同的政見空間。但是其前提就是首先必須認同憲政原則。必須效忠憲法。而非處心積慮意圖廢除憲政。而左瘋的根本目標以及已經可以看到的行爲方式在在揭示牠們並不認同這部憲法。所以需要「進步主義」地與時俱進逐步閹割憲法的本義。單靠現在高法現有幾位保守派大法官不足以完成捍衛憲法的歷史重任。還是要靠每一個明白此中要害關鍵的選民。這是憲政民主的本來意思。】

Just to review what this thing is, it’s an unelected bureaucracy that rules the country without oversight from voters or legislatures. For well over 100 years, most courts have given it a pass, just assuming that the “experts” in the bureaucracies are handling things just fine, faithfully interpreting legislation, and merely creating rules for easy compliance.
Generations have gone by as this fourth branch of government has grown in size, scope, and strength. For the most part, its baneful impositions have been felt by one business or one industry at a time. You have heard the stories. The car dealer complains about how the Department of Labor is making him crazy. The machine-parts manufacturer is going bonkers about letters from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The energy company can never satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
They are stories and we find them unfortunate, but we’ve generally avoided thinking of these as systematic, all-pervasive, and truly dangerous to the idea of freedom itself. However, there are some 432 of these agencies. The authors of the Declaration of Independence noted their existence back in the day when they accused the English king of having “erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”
They fought a revolution to end the tyranny but now we have a home-grown form, starting in 1883 with the Pendleton Act and continuing throughout the 20th century as each new administration creates its own bureaucracy.
The thing has taken on a power of its own. Strangely, the topic hardly comes up at all during elections, and that’s for a reason. Politicians running for office like to advertise their power to make change. They might even believe it. In reality, though, elected officials have very little influence over the conduct of public life relative to the administrative state.

As Trump found, not even the president is a match for the deep state.

【余案:老川無論成敗都功莫大焉的原因就是他首先將這個問題揭示了出來。我在前論中甚至提到保守派視作偶像的里根而實際上他作爲深知其中利弊的成熟政客跟老川這頭闖入瓷器店的蠻牛或者直言國王身無片縷的男童完全不同,他是完全未能觸動既得利益集團根本利益的。美國建國先賢絞盡腦汁設計出來的山巔之國絕非足以一勞永逸的永動機。需要直面人性惡的破壞作用,戰戰兢兢如履薄冰地面對不斷改變的世界。請記住,憲法基要主義的保守派大法官之所以拒絕與時俱進不斷改變憲法甚至重新立憲的原因就是深知美國憲法本身是神跡,而不是耍筆桿子的文人一拍腦袋就能寫出來的。現在所有立誓打算毀滅美國的左瘋政客手上揮舞的「1619」大旗就是想通過否定建國先賢的歷史地位來由此及彼地否定憲法的神聖地位。正所謂牽一髮而動全身。大法官守護的並非一張破紙一頁歷史文件。而是美國之所以是美國的立國之本。燈塔囯能否繼續大放光明的唯一機會,就是對憲法之爲憲法的認知。不能衹是靠幾個肉身存在的大法官啊,要靠億萬民衆對神跡的認知與守護,阿門!】

Here’s what has happened since March 2020: The beast showed its face. Seemingly out of nowhere, these strange agencies and people for whom we never voted were ruling our lives. They restricted travel, forced us to cover our faces, closed our churches and schools, and forbid our businesses from operating unless they were big enough to afford a powerful lobbying arm in Washington. The whole scene was appalling. It caused many people—including some earnest judges—to take notice.
Once you see the problem, you can’t unsee it.
Consider the problem with inflation alone: it’s largely the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, which is among the most terrifying of the deep-state agencies. This thing was founded in 1913 with the promise that it would end “wildcat banking” and contain the expansion of money and credit so that we would have a more stable economic environment to encourage growth.
Even now, people believe that the Fed is going to somehow fix recessions and inflations, even though a deeper analysis reveals that the Fed itself is the cause of both. The Fed surely can’t be both the problem and the solution, which is becoming as obvious as the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can’t make a textbook pathogen go away with power and potions.
Let’s take a quick look at the supposed 2 percent inflation target of the Federal Reserve. It might seem to you that they have long ago blown past this, such that it is entirely cosmetic. But the Fed has a little trick up its sleeve. It says it doesn’t follow conventional inflation indexes such as the Consumer or Producer Price Index. It’s fancier than that. It follows instead the index of Personal Consumption Expenditures. And, sure enough, when we look at the PCE, we find that the Fed is pretty good at its job!
All that changed recently when the PCE itself blew up. Now, the Fed has been revealed to be utterly incompetent, in a way that is no different from the CDC, NIH, DOL, DOE, DOT, HHS, DHS, FTC, SEC, and all the rest of these glorified 3-letter agencies employing nearly 3 million people who can’t be fired or controlled. The unique feature of our times is that the expert class in government has been unmasked as fakes at best and unrelenting menaces at worst.
Here’s where the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation stands today:
So much for competence at the Fed! And yet, how exactly is this institution supposed to be controlled? We don’t vote for them. The Fed board is appointed by the president with Senate approval but this control is mostly mythical. The fancy economists run circles around the political actors with big words and fancy finance, so what can they do but approve?
The political class too often acts like absentee owners of a far-off land: they have little choice but to trust the hired landlords to do a good job. The administrative machinery has become the real power, not only implementing the policies but making and enforcing the rules too.

【余案:兩難問題確實存在!現代社會的複雜程度當然不可能讓每個選民瞭解社會機器的運作細節。代議制本身就蘊含越俎代庖的可能甚至必然性。建國早期所有政客不受薪的前提就是上層社會富有階層對政權的把持。這個把持能否延續就涉及到民主之「民」的定義。教育程度跟財產權門檻本身就前設了社會的核心。一旦這個核心的邊界外移外溢,社會的崩潰也就是題中應有之事以及遲早的事。這正是現代西方憲政民主社會無從跨越的一道坎。阿貓阿狗都有投票權的結果肯定就是選票的濫用以至於權力操縱。傳統所謂無恆產者無恆心的本意就在這裏。你不需要對這個社會負起責任時,你唯一考量的衹是個體的眼前利益。這就是否定憲政民主的唯一理由。代議制必定會衍生深層政府也是伴隨憲政民主社會的存在而存在的無可奈何。所謂監督檢討本身也是靠人纔能去做的事。中國歷代王朝都不待見的貪腐直到今天都見不到盡頭,原因就是紀檢本身需要紀檢。不能直接監督檢討的代議制,始終無法擺脫這樣的結局。王力雄創造性地提出「層議制」來針砭「代議制」,用心不可謂不好。可是他面對的挑戰一如既往,其一就是人腦設計出來的社會結構如何因應基於自然存在的人性惡行爲;其二則是歷史經驗了。蘇維埃的失敗實踐讓人們對所有一廂情願的完美設計存有戒心。紙上談兵易,實際操作難。人類歷史幾千年,何以沒有一個哲人想到王力雄的創造,背後有沒有不可抗力的原因?至於如何應對深層政府的坐大,大概已非王力雄來得及考慮的事了。】

With COVID-19, this whole scam was revealed to absolutely everyone—not just to small businesses but to every single individual and family in the United States. The whole bureaucracy announced to us what they have always believed but rarely said: your life is not your own. Your job is to comply. And so, this raises the fascinating question of what precisely are we going for here and what kind of society and government do we want? Surely this should be up to the people!
While the Supreme Court in its most recent decision was dealing with a technical aspect of how regulations applied to a coal plant, the implications of the decision are much larger. The EPA was determining policy, even making it, riffing wildly on legislation with the presumption that courts will always and everywhere defer to the agency over industry and even over the words of the legislation. The court said no: it was the EPA that had been operating illegally all along.
This decision is so startling because it shows a Supreme Court doing what it is supposed to do, serving as a legal check on the power ambitions of government itself. That’s what the framers intended. We’ve just begun, however. The court needs to attack the whole machinery of the deep state at its very root, going after “Chevron deference” (1984), the Public Health Services Act (1944), the Federal Reserve Act (1913), and stretching all the way back to the Pendleton Act (1883).
A nation ruled by a faceless deep state isn’t a representative democracy and it isn’t consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
When you consider the implications of this one decision, they are awesome. It doesn’t just apply to the EPA and its elaborate plans for changing the global climate through command and control. It also applies to every other agency, including the CDC and even the Fed itself.
They all should be accountable to the people through their elected representatives. If we can’t get back to that system, we will lose everything.

【余案:本文作者看來還是未能釐清所謂民選代表跟深層政府之間的利害關係。正如我在上文已經指出的,民選代表本身已不能瞭解所有運作細節。他不得不仰仗由「專家」控制的機構。這纔是深層政府不可避免的原因。前幾天因爲英國「肥波」遭到同黨逼宮而黯然辭職的事,順便就談到英美政制的同異及利弊。這裏當然不方便詳談,但是值得提到的一點,就是英國反對黨的影子内閣制度顯然比美國的抓瞎民代要好一點。尼克森回憶錄曾經自嘲美國政客視界衹有四年。他這是說總統。而衆議院就更短了。兩年裏空手入白刃,要弄懂所有需要處理的國務根本沒有可能。這是外界嘲笑美國政客一無所知的根據。坊間嘲笑中國官員填寫履歷時在有何特長一欄中寫:開會。其實美國政客何嘗不是這樣。現在潮流興換跑道。就是連任届滿的老油子改選其他職務。選民從電視上看看,哪個模樣周正一些的話就衹能是他了。這樣一來又豈能不荒腔走板呢。】

Jeffrey A. Tucker









Like my work??
Don't forget to support or like, so I know you are with me..

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Want to read more ?

Login with one click and join the most diverse creator community.