Work, Survival, and the Forgotten Right to Be Left Alone
It is April 16th. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.
Today we come to the heart of the issue.
The home distilling case is not really about alcohol.
It is about whether the government may treat private human activity as though it exists only by permission.
A man distills spirits at home. He no longer has to buy them. He becomes wealthier because he keeps what he otherwise would have spent.
That is a form of accession to wealth.
The same thing occurs when a man:
· grows his own food,
· repairs his own roof,
· builds his own furniture,
· works from home,
· or earns money by his own labor.
He is wealthier because he has produced value for himself.
But the government has often treated these private acts as though they fall within its authority simply because they may affect taxes or the market.
The classic example is Wickard v. Filburn.
In that case, a farmer grew wheat for his own use. He did not sell it. He did not enter the market. He simply wanted to feed himself.
The government argued that because he grew his own wheat, he did not have to buy wheat elsewhere. Therefore, his private decision affected the market.
And the Supreme Court agreed.
Think about that.
A man was regulated not because he entered commerce, but because he avoided commerce.
The government effectively said:
“Because you do not buy, we may regulate what you make.”
That reasoning is one of the most dangerous expansions of federal power in American history.
Because once government may regulate you for not participating in the market, there is no private sphere left.
You may no longer grow, build, work, create, or survive on your own terms.
The home distilling case begins to challenge that logic.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that private self-sufficiency is not a crime simply because it reduces taxable commerce.
That means the principle is much larger than alcohol.
A man’s labor is no different.
A man works because he must survive. He earns because he must survive. He feeds his family because he must survive.
These are not privileges granted by government. They are natural activities.
Government may have limited authority to tax certain activities under certain circumstances. But that does not mean government may treat survival itself as though it belongs to the state.
For years, many people have said, “The Constitution does not prohibit taxing survival.”
But perhaps that misses the point.
The Constitution may not forbid every tax connected to survival. But it absolutely forbids transforming the power to tax into a power to dominate the private acts by which a person survives.
The Fifth Circuit saw that.
It recognized that government cannot take a narrow authority and expand it until nothing private remains.
Which means the deeper truth is beginning to emerge:
The people do not exist to serve the system. The system exists to protect the freedom of the people.
