I think that a government in its proper place, as per Bastiat,
Bastiat defines the primacy of “property” by fiat, as a supposed law of God. I reject that philosophy, and I have no interest in debating whether or not it’s a law of God.
the tax code is written by congress, but treasury tax regulations are not
Treasury tax regulations provide “the official interpretation of the IRC” passed by Congress. So Congress retains most of the power.
specifically that one can claim that the exact same executive order, implemented simply by different presidents, can change in constitutionality
This is not specific enough to know what you’re referring to.
Would failed government programs that reduce wealth convince you? Would lower levels of polled happiness after the application of more regulation convince you? Would more instability of markets and prices after government intervention convince you? Would lack of any progress on poverty after spending over 5 trillion dollars convince you?
To get answers to these questions, I only need to ask you the reciprocal questions about what it would take to change your beliefs: would failed government deregulation that reduced wealth convince you (I have no idea what “reduce wealth” means in the original question, but whatever)? Would lower levels of polled happiness after the removal of regulations convince you? Would more instability of markets and prices after removal of regulations convince you? Would lack of any progress on poverty after removing all government assistance convince you?
Obviously the answers are no, no, no, and no.
Why do I answer “no”? Because (1) a few rotten apples doesn’t prove all apples are rotten, (2) U.S. democracy and U.S. government tend not to work as well as some other governments, but this does not mean they must necessarily work poorly, (3) your partisan media sources vastly overstate the harms of government.
what would convince you that larger government doesn’t create prosperity, happiness, freedom, stability, or limits on the harm to the poor and vulnerable?
There’s a world of difference between “doesn’t” and “can’t”. But the question doesn’t seem relevant, since I doubt the government has to be “bigger” to achieve such goals, unless you’re using a silly definition of “size”, such as “size of tax revenues”.
I guess I wonder why your default position is such great faith in government, when there are so many poignant examples of government failure to meet your goals.
It is simply the difference between consequentialism/utilitarianism and conservatism. The former does not reject government a priori.
