On losing liberty - bit by bit

 Roscoe Filburn ... "New Deal" farmer

My version:  This guy (Filburn) was growing wheat ... on his own property ... for his own use ... and the federal government stopped him from doing it ... and made him destroy the wheat ... and pay a fine.  How's THAT for "liberty?"

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government. More details at wikipedia:

This is a very famous case known as "Wikard vs Filburn."  Try to remember the name of the case because you will probably hear it again.  Notice that it isn't "US vs Filburn."  My guess is it had something to do with "standing"  but you can research it yourself if you want.

This whole "standing" issue is huge as it regards losing your freedom.  Somehow all these "environmentalist" groups have "standing" to sue oil companies on your behalf.  I think congress gave them standing some time ago and they've used it ever since to sue and sue and sue.  Not just oil companies either, they've got their hands in everything.  Of course, when companies have to defend themselves against these suits, they either drop their activity or they have to pay to defend themselves in court ... both of which increase the price you pay for their product ... over and over and over again.

Also, notice how the Supreme Court used the commerce clause to insert its big nose into your business.  The commerce clause is supposed to PROMOTE commerce, not hinder it.  In this case there wasn't any commerce, much less interstate commerce, but did that stop the federal government from coming for Roscoe's your liberty?

We needed the commerce clause because, back in the day, the states would do ridiculous things like tax the ever-loving-crap out of products from competing states etc and it all got out of hand.  However, once the playing ground was level (to use a favorite term of liberals,) the goverment has no more business it it. Notice the "playing ground" was originally UNLEVELED by the state governments with their taxes etc so the feds had to fix it.

After that, the free market should be left alone. Over the long term people learn not to engage in certain behaviors due to the negative effects they might have over GENERATIONS.  It is my contention that this is how people learn.  This is how societies advance ... when parents teach their children not to engage in behavior due to LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES then we're getting somewhere.

But ... when you have the federal government come in and "help" they never get it quite right. People eventually find ways around the idiocy and the government has to get involved in more and more minutia with the "lesson" never getting learned. 

Meanwhile, we're learning another lesson ... the federal government's unnecessary involvement in the free market only delays the other inevitable lessons that must be learned from time to time ... and we only end up suffering longer.  THIS is the reason I hate the idiot liberals who think the government can solve all of our problems.

Photo from University of Louiville:

The Filburn farm today is, practically speaking, the site of the Salem Mall near Dayton, Ohio. This photo of Roscoe Filburn at the time of his Supreme Court case was provided by his daughter, Mary Lou Spurgeon.