So, my brother posits that all human activity is economic in nature and is verbose in defense of the idea. (Just scroll down if you don't believe me.) And it occurred to me today to wonder then what he makes of the Obama administration's defense of their health care legislation under the Commerce Clause based on their assertion that the purchase, or failure to purchase, health insurance is economic activity and thus a legal aspect for government regulation under the aforementioned clause.
Would my brother, in so many regards a libertarian, then think it licit for the government to regulate any and all activity since any and all activity is economic in nature?
I suspect that he'll argue that the Commerce Clause is over-interpreted to mean more than it ought, rather than back away from the contention that everything in the world is economic. In anticipation, let me ask as well whether the framers' intent with that phrase should over-ride the actual meaning of what was written? Commerce does have a broader application than "trade" or "exchange" such as was suggested by Bork.
Since you probably won't read my whole post, let me just point out that the Commerce Clause doesn't use the word "economic" and I didn't use the word commerce in the offending lines in my original economics post.
ReplyDelete