Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but these words echoed by Thomas Jefferson have passed the test of time. In essence, the government should not enact any law or policy that favors one religion over another and vice versa. This lack of intervention style of governance is called laissez faire. In this instance, laissez faire for the most part is a good policy because it prevents one religion from receiving preferential treatment over other religious denominations. And if laissez faire is a good premise for government policy to follow, it is a shame that this standard is not applied to other aspects between the societal and government relationship. If this were there case there would be no need for lobbyists because there would be no government ties to special interests.
Over the two plus centuries of America’s existence there has been a major paradigm shift in how the Constitution has been interpreted. For instance, today, the first amendment, freedom of speech, also means freedom of expression. The Constitution’s “necessary clause”, the “commerce clause”, and even the “contracts clause” interpretation have all expanded over the past two hundred years. This has enabled the federal government to expand and grow at an alarming rate. Today, we have fewer freedoms because the federal government’s thirst for taxpayer money to pay for their ever increasing expansion is forcing more and more people into poverty.
All government laws and policies are for the most part unfair and inconsistently enforced. Take for example the new Obamacare reform of the healthcare industry. The government has issued 111 waivers to union groups and corporations who are represented by lobbyists. Meanwhile; the other 99% of corporation and union groups must comply with the law. This unfair law could have been avoided, if and only if, the government followed a laissez faire approach of governance and did not interfere in the healthcare industry.
Why does separation of church and state pass the test of time, but other aspects of Constitutional law and government intervention fail miserably over time? Today, the government gives tens of billions of dollars to thousands of different groups, but ignores other similar entities. For example, the government gives money to National Public Radio and to left leaning special interest groups such as ACORN, but neglects to yield the same treatment to similar entities. This is not fair, nor is it consistent. The stimulus, for instance, gave money to select companies, charities, and non-profit groups while ignoring others. The Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailed out some banks and left others to fail. It seems that companies, organizations, and groups that have lobbyist working for them in Washington DC reap the benefits and those who do not play the game go extinct. Although the quid pro quo process between lobbyists and politicians may not been seen as corrupt or illegal, but giving one company a sweet heart deal in return for campaign contributions is sleazy. All of this hypocrisy and contradictory policy can be avoided if the government practiced laissez fair and did not feel compelled to generate a massive paradigm shift in the government’s societal role.
The bottom line is that the only way the government can avoid being unfair and inconsistent with its policies is to practice a form of laissez faire. The government has done this successfully when it comes to separation of church and state. But there has been a dramatic paradigm shift over the past two hundred years where the government has expanded and grown so much they inconsistently interfere into societal aspects such as healthcare, green companies, charities, and so on. I will follow the philosophy that the federal government should use laissez faire for everything, not just between religions, but for all domestic and foreign policy. Yes, sometimes the federal government must intervene in the event of a crisis, but there should be only a few exceptions to the rule.
My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)