Author: bmboone

I am a sixty -three year old father of two and grandfather of one and have been married for 30 years. I am a forensic accountant/economist and am a partner in a professional services firm providing litigation support in the form of expert testimony. Prior to beginning my career as a forensic expert, I was the CFO of a large regional wholesale mortgage banking company. I have a masters in business administration from the University of California at Davis Graduate School of Management. I completed my undergraduate studies at Claremont McKenna College earning a Bachelor of Arts in Economics/Accounting. I was an athlete in college; I played football at Claremont McKenna named a captain of my team and to the all conference second team two seasons as a linebacker. I play the guitar and an occasional game of golf. I am interested in my family history.

State vs Individual: a Pivotal Point in American History

The jurisprudential and political transformations of the 1930s redefined the relationship between the American citizen and the federal government. By substituting individual sovereignty with an amorphous definition of popular sovereignty rooted in the ‘common good,’ the courts unmoored government from its structural limits. When independent production can be collectively confiscated and private liberties systematically managed by unelected agencies, popular sovereignty loses its foundational legitimacy. To preserve original constitutional liberty, the framework must re-recognize that collective mandates are valid only when they respect the absolute and pre-existing sovereignty of the individual.

The American founding was predicated on the primacy of individual sovereignty, asserting that a legitimate government only exists when it respects the inherent independence of the self-owning person. This text argues that the 1930s marked a radical departure from this ideal, as the judiciary began to prioritize the common good over private rights, effectively granting the state vast control over economic and personal life. Through landmark court cases and the expansion of the administrative state, the federal government transitioned from a protector of wealth to a mechanism for majoritarian redistribution and centralized regulation. Ultimately, the source contends that true liberty is lost when individual autonomy is subordinated to collective mandates, calling for a return to a framework where personal sovereignty remains the supreme legal standard.

From Individual Sovereignty to the Collective State: A Historical and Constitutional Analysis of the 1930s Paradigm Shift

written by Google AI with drawing on my topical prompts and notes

Introduction: The Primacy of Individual Sovereignty


The American founding was an experiment rooted in the radical premise that sovereignty resides
inherently within the individual, rather than a monarch or a collective state. Under this framework, personal sovereignty serves as a strict condition precedent to any legitimate form of popular sovereignty. A political community cannot execute a valid, non-tyrannical collective vote unless the participating citizens are entirely independent, self-owning units. When individual autonomy is compromised, popular sovereignty ceases to be an expression of liberty and instead becomes a mechanism for majoritarian domination. Over time, particularly during the critical decade of the 1930s, this founding equilibrium shifted dramatically. A new constitutional paradigm emerged, one that elevated the ‘common good’ as a supreme judicial justification for limiting individual freedoms and centralizing governmental authority.


The Prelude: Constitutional Fault Lines Prior to the 1930s


The friction between federal overreach and state autonomy had been building long before the Great
Depression. The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the birth of the Progressive Era, an
ideological movement that challenged the Lockean foundations of the U.S. Constitution. Progressivism
posited that an industrial society required an active, expert-led state to manage economic affairs and
redistribute resources. The structural framework for this transition was laid with the ratification of the
Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, establishing a federal income tax. This marked a profound structural shift: for the first time, the federal government held a direct, unapportioned claim on the private production of citizens. When combined with a graduated or progressive rate structure, this tool provided a legal mechanism for a political majority to disproportionately confiscate the wealth of a productive minority under the banner of social equity.


Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 centralized monetary authority, altering the value
and stability of private property. Throughout the 1920s, the Supreme Court largely maintained a protective stance toward private contract rights and economic liberty—a doctrine often termed ‘Lochner-era jurisprudence.’ However, the economic collapse of 1929 fractured this legal consensus, creating an acute political crisis that the executive and legislative branches sought to resolve by aggressively stretching federal power.

The Judicial Pivot: The 1930s Supreme Court and the ‘CommonGood’


As President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced his New Deal policies, the Supreme Court initially
resisted the expansion of federal jurisdiction. However, under intense political pressure—climaxing in
FDR’s 1937 court-packing threat—the judiciary underwent a structural realignment. This pivot effectively subordinated individual sovereignty to legislative determinations of public welfare.


A foundational turning point occurred in Nebbia v. New York (1934), where the Court upheld
state-level milk price controls. The decision declared that property rights are not absolute and that the
government may regulate businesses for the ‘public interest,’ provided the laws are not arbitrary. This
case cracked the doctrinal wall protecting economic liberty, establishing that the ‘common good’ could
override individual contract and pricing decisions. This logic was extended to federal power in the
landmark case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which sustained minimum wage laws and signaled the definitive end of the Lochner era. The Court explicitly ruled that liberty under the Constitution is not absolute, but is instead subject to the constraints of due process and the regulatory demands of the community.


The erosion of interstate commerce limitations soon followed. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp. (1937), the Court radically expanded the definition of the Commerce Clause, ruling that Congress
could regulate intrastate activities if they had a ‘close and substantial relation’ to interstate commerce. This jurisprudential path culminated slightly later in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), where the Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat strictly for his own personal consumption on his own land fell under federal
regulatory jurisdiction because his total lack of market participation, if aggregated, affected interstate
commerce. Through these rulings, individual sovereignty was legally decoupled from its status as a
superior standard, becoming subservient to majoritarian legislation.

The Expansion of Federal Agencies and Regulatory Power


The judicial greenlight given to the ‘common good’ doctrine catalyzed an unprecedented explosion of
the federal bureaucracy. To manage the vast economic interventions of the New Deal, Congress began
rapidly delegating its legislative authorities to executive branch agencies. Entities such as the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) were established. This trend accelerated into the mid-century,
culminating in an intricate web of regulatory bodies including the Social Security Administration (SSA).


These bureaucratic entities represent a fundamental departure from the separation of powers
established in the Constitution. Agencies routinely combine legislative power (by writing administrative
rules and codes), executive power (by enforcing those rules), and judicial power (by adjudicating violations in internal administrative courts). For the individual American, this means facing an apparatus that operates outside the traditional protections of Article III courts, such as standard rules of evidence and jury trials. Agency actions are often insulated by judicial deference doctrines, effectively granting unelected officials the power to dictate the terms of private employment, financial investments, and property usage.

The Fiscal Reality: Government Spending and Transfer Payments


This regulatory transformation was mirrored by an equally dramatic fiscal shift. Prior to the 20th
century, federal spending was primarily confined to core constitutional mandates: national defense,
infrastructure, and basic administrative operations. The post-1930s era completely inverted this allocation, transforming the federal government from an institution that protects wealth into a mechanism that redistributes it. The introduction of Social Security in 1935 established the structural framework for federal ‘transfer payments’—money collected from one segment of the population and transferred directly to another.


As these programs expanded into universal entitlements, transfer payments grew to dominate the
national balance sheet. When combined with a progressive income tax system, this architecture creates a
systemic vulnerability to what the Founders warned against as the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ A voting bloc can successfully pass legislation to confiscate the private production of a minority, using the rhetoric of collective welfare. This fiscal engine funds the very administrative state that regulates individual lives, creating a self-perpetuating cycle: increased taxation funds broader dependencies, which in turn demand greater administrative oversight.


Conclusion: Reclaiming the Standard of Personal Liberty


The jurisprudential and political transformations of the 1930s redefined the relationship between the
American citizen and the federal government. By substituting individual sovereignty with an amorphous
definition of popular sovereignty rooted in the ‘common good,’ the courts unmoored government from its
structural limits. When independent production can be collectively confiscated and private liberties
systematically managed by unelected agencies, popular sovereignty loses its foundational legitimacy. To
preserve original constitutional liberty, the framework must re-recognize that collective mandates are valid only when they respect the absolute and pre-existing sovereignty of the individual.

The Weakening Fiber of American Fabric


Historically, the strength of the American populace was directly tied to the individual’s responsibility to confront life’s inherent adversity. The ancestors who cleared wilderness, built cities, and defended liberty did not view life as a grievance to be solved by an external authority. They viewed trials as the necessary forge of growth. In a free society, overcoming a challenge provides the unique psychological and social compound interest that creates strong citizens. It builds efficacy, fosters community mutual aid, and instills a deep sense of personal dignity.

When individuals navigate the inherent frictions of existence—economic shifts, personal loss, or social upheaval—they emerge as resilient fibers capable of supporting the weight of a free nation.
When a society rebrands all hardship as an unfair “struggle” that must be eradicated by institutional intervention, it fundamentally alters the contract between the citizen and the state. The assertion that citizens should be entirely insulated from the friction of life invites a slow surrender of personal freedom.

To fulfill the promise of total care, the state must expand its reach, regulating risk and managing outcomes. In doing so, it deprives the individual of the very arenas where strength is developed. History demonstrates that when the state assumes the role of universal caretaker, the populace gradually trades its self-reliance for a fragile security, forgetting that the muscles of liberty atrophy when they are never tested.


Ultimately, a nation is only as robust as the individual threads woven into its cultural fabric. A populace raised on the promise of exemption from hardship naturally becomes brittle, lacking the adaptive capacity required to face genuine crises. To preserve the strength of the American experiment, there must be a cultural reclamation of the value of adversity.

Viewing life through the lens of challenge rather than perpetual grievance allows individuals to reclaim their agency. By facing the natural trials of a free life, citizens cease to be passive consumers of state care and instead become the strong, unbroken fibers that ensure the continuity of a resilient nation.

From Noah Wester, October 17, 1787

As we witness the assault on the constitution, we can look back at the differences of opinion regarding its content at the time of it’s formation.  The constitution is the foundation of our structure and the nation.   We must be careful that we do not weaken our foundation.  I was particularly interested in the image of a Caesar or Cromwell availing himself of our divisions wading to a throne through a stream of blood.  The past seven years in our nation have been akin to that image for me.

 

The following is from an essay by Noah Webster dates October 17, 1787:

It is absurd  for a man to oppose the adoption of the constitution, because he thinks some part of it defective or exceptionable.  Let every man be at liberty to expunge from the constitution what he judges to be exceptionable, and not a syllable of the constitution will survive the scrutiny.  A painter, after executing an masterly piece, requested every spectator to draw a pencil mark over the part that did not please him; but to his surprise, he soon found the whole piece defaced.  Let every man examine the most perfect building by his own taste, and like some microscopic critics, condemn the whole for small deviations from the rules of architecture, and not a part of the best constructed fabric would escape.  But let any man take a comprehensive view of the whole, and he will be pleased with the general beauty and proportions and admire the structure.  The same remarks apply to the new constitution.  I have no doubt that every member of the late convention has exceptions to some part of the system proposed.  Their constituents have the same, and if every objection must be removed, before we have a national government, the Lord have mercy on us.

Perfection is not the lot of humanity.  Instead of censuring the small faults of the constitution, I am astonished that many clashing interests have been reconciled, and so many sacrifices made to the general interest.  The mutual concessions made by the gentlemen at the convention, reflect the higher honor on their candor and liberality; at the same time they prove their minds were deeply impressed with a conviction that much mutual sacrifices are essential to our union.  They must be made sooner or later by every state; or jealous local interests and prejudices will unsheathe the sword, and some Caeser or Cromwell will avail himself of our divisions, and wade to a throne through streams of blood.

 

 

The Cost of Early Adoption and the Related Benefits of Income Inequality

America, as a relatively free society and economy, has historically been the home for many innovations.  Innovative products tend to first be acquired by the wealthiest in our society.  But the luxuries of today become the necessities of tomorrow.

F. A. Hayek:

If today in the United States or in western Europe the relatively poor can have a car or a refrigerator, an airplane trip or a radio, at the cost of a reasonable part of their income, this was made possible because in the past others with larger incomes are able to spend on what was then a luxury.   The Constitution of Liberty.

Hayek said: that in a progressive society, the comparatively wealthy citizens are somewhat ahead of the rest of us in the material advantages that they enjoy.  The wealthier live in a phase of economic evolution that the others have not yet reached.  The wealthy are the early adopters and are paying for things at a higher rate than the lower-income citizens will later pay.  The definition of poverty changes with the times to incorporate into necessity what was once a luxury.  Poverty in that sense becomes a relative concept rather than an absolute and static concept.

What then can we say about the current political fixation on income differences.  After we acquire food, shelter and clothing (not necessarily in that order) are we want for more?  Most of what we strive for, in the discussion about income inequality, are things (other than basic food, clothes and shelter) that others have and can afford that we cannot.  But why?  What is our motivation, once our basic needs are met, to sacrifice free time and effort or to risk savings to earn or acquire more income?  Do we want to be first?  The wealthy had the first cars and the first mobile phones at a time when the price for these things were out of reach for most of society but these are now considered almost essential today and are apparently affordable, in a more advanced form then when first introduced, to most of society.  The recognized doctrine of economies of scale tells us that the spreading of fixed costs across more sales volume can greatly reduce the costs of production and increase profit margins.  The wealthy early adopters pay the necessary high price for new innovations until the scale economies can be reached (such as with the electric car trend.)  So what the wealthy do is take risks with their savings, sacrifice more free time and effort in pursuit of higher income simply to fund the innovation that is later made available to the lower-income segments of the population at a price they can afford.

In a purely engineered socialist society with a planned economy, there would be need to designate individuals to try out the latest advances long before they were made available to the rest of us.  But where would these advances come from?  In a free economy, the very people who first try out the innovations at the highest price are the innovators who seek higher incomes.  The same pattern is true with people as it is with nations, according to Hayek:

Not only are the countries of the west richer  because they have more advanced technological knowledge but they have more technologically advanced knowledge because they are richer.  And the free gift of the knowledge that has cost to those in the lead much to achieve enables those who follow to reach the same level later at a much lower cost.  Indeed, so long as some countries lead, all others can follow, although the conditions of spontaneous progress may be absent in them.  The Constitution of Liberty.

What would be the result of moving to some average standard of living for all by moving resources from the wealthiest to the poorest until we had absolute and complete equality?  Hayek states that there is no more effective way of making a society stationary or effective way of slowing down progress than by imposing upon all something like the same average standard or by allowing the most capable innovators a standard the same or only slightly above the average.

What we need to ask ourselves as we are told that “income inequality is a problem” is:  what will income equality look like?  What are we striving for when we talk about a change?  We have to ask ourselves if we, by preventing progress at the top, will prevent it for all?  Are we better off having a rich society where everyone will eventually enjoy the advancements but only after they are enjoyed by fewer with more wealth than having an “equal” society where we do not have these advancements at all?  What we have today, as a function of a society where incomes have been unequal, is the average citizen able to afford amazing technology (a care with Bluetooth allowing for communication without wires and that provides directions, airbags and collision warnings) and yet a focus of our president is that 1% of our population gets to have exclusive use of innovation for a time at a much higher price than the rest will pay later.  Is this really a problem or is this a positive hallmark of our free (or at least once relatively free) society and economy?

The “FREE” in American Freedom

There is no latin translation for the word freedom.  The word freedom is an old English word.  As a verb, the word means:  extricate, release, set free, release from captivity or confinement.  Someone who has been freed (verb)  has their freedom (noun).  Freedom is something that you possess after you have been freed.  If someone holds you captive and frees you, you have been granted freedom; you have been released from captivity or confinement.  But the word free can be used as an adverb as well, meaning without cost or payment:  The students were admitted free of tuition based upon there demonstrated need.  Has the  “free” in the noun freedom been mistaken for the adverb use of the word free?

My wife is a pre-school teacher assistant.  She is capable and qualified to pursue a higher paying position but she loves her job because she feels she can interact with young children and make a measurable positive difference in their lives.  I am very proud of what she does and feel it is something important.  I am the primary earner in our family and because of my level of income we are in a higher tax bracket and have utilized all of our deductions and exemptions such that her income added to our taxable base is taxed at the highest marginal federal and state tax rates.  Because of this, we really net (after all taxes)  a relatively small amount, at the margin by adding her gross  income to our family.  This means that there is diminishing financial incentive for her to work in this job.   The area where she teaches includes many low-income families.  The reference to the state pre-school program by many who work in the program and those who have children in the program is that it is “free.”  Much to the surprise of many of the participants my wife cannot stop herself from often correcting them by saying, “this program is not free; while it may be free of charge to you, it is not free of charge to society:  someone is paying for it.”  Some will actually argue with her and say, “no it is free, the government provides it.”   My wife continues to work despite the true after-tax reward because of how she is enriched through touching the lives of young children.  But this mentality of it being “free” is frustrating to her.  Can you see the irony?

There is an apparent permanent culture of entitlement and belief that “we” are a wealthy country and that our government has endless resources to provide “free” resources for it’s people.  But what happens if more citizens, by getting “free” resources, take more than they give than citizens who give more than they take?  The source of government in a democratic society is supposed to be the people.  The source of funds or resources that the government receives (or confiscates) and re-allocates comes from the people.  The government, as an entity, is not wealthy and the government does not have any money.  The government is a trustee of the people’s money.  It is incumbent upon each citizen to work and struggle to contribute what they can to that pool of resources entrusted to the government, and to work and struggle to avoid being one who takes more from that pool than he contributes to that pool.  This is a basic tenet of socialization and the survival of a society.  Oddly we take more and more from those who produce more and less and less from those who produce less and less.  We talk about people with earnings and assets as “fortunate” and with “privilege” and “wealth” but we do not talk about the sacrifice and struggle involved in creating earnings and assets.  We talk about and assume that people with lower wages or earnings are people who are less fortunate and who are “struggling” but we do not talk about the oft behavior of dependence and the avoidance of certain struggle.  But my experience tells me that most of the people with income and assets are the ones getting up each day and facing a struggle and frankly many (not all, if not most) of the citizens with little or no earned income and assets have in the past or are avoiding the struggle and risks of pursuing production in favor of complacency and dependence on those who do.  This may be politically incorrect to say, but it is an unfortunate and growing truth about many in our current society.

The origin of the “free” in American freedom was the verb which became the noun “freedom”; the people in America possessed freedom.  People came to America seeking freedom to practice their chosen faith and to be free to live their lives as they chose without persecution knowing that they were also free to fail with the freedom to seek success.  The freedom to pursue good fortune exposed them to the possibility of failure.  Early American’s knew this and accepted this gladly.  There was no “free lunch” in the freedom that early American’s sought.  While the two concepts were cousins (having freedom or getting something for free) they were very distant cousins.  Slowly, since the great society programs were enacted, the cousins are being introduced and are interbreeding.  I think it is important for citizens to be reminded, that there is a cost for everything.  Someone is paying through effort, trade of stored resources, time, etc. for anything you consume or hold.  Nothing is truly free to society even if it has been offered to you without cost to you.  If you are a capable citizen and do not participate in the struggle of human existence to produce resources and continue to take resources produced by others, you are participating in the demise of the very structure that has fed you and are limiting it’s availability to others who may be in need.  Every citizen of our country needs to be reminded:  freedom means freedom to fail; NOTHING IS FREE and for the world to keep spinning we need to strive to give more than we take, one person at a time!