Federalist unions are formed by consenting individuals and/or
groups coming together to create a union.
The act of federating has a set of purposes and those who join are
committing themselves to the union by swearing allegiance to the provisions of a
covenant or a compact. In turn, this
commitment is binding irrespective of what others in the union do, whether they
abide by the provisions or not. We who
are born in the United States are automatically included in this union of “We
the People” and are to abide by the provisions of the US Constitution, our national compact, their main purpose being to
set up the United States government and spell out our rights under this
arrangement. The mental construct that
provides the philosophical founding for this whole view is called
federalism. Let me point out that the term,
federalism, is often misused in that its meaning is ascribed to the prerogatives
of the states, also members of our national federation. While this latter concern is a legitimate one
under the parameters of federalism, it is not its sole concern. Individuals and/or groups who form the union
are to be equal and do have rights, but no single or group of members has
inordinate or exclusive rights or powers in determining what the federated
group does or forms as policy. Therefore, to singularly use terms such as
states’ rights to indicate the totality of what federalism or federalist
arrangements entail is a misuse of the term.
One can equally claim that the civil rights claims of individuals or oppressed
groups are equally a federalist concern.
This blog has gone over these descriptions before and one of
its aims is to point out evidence of this relationship. I have argued that the view of federalism
that prevailed up to the post World War II period, I have designated as
traditional federalism. This view of
governance and politics served as the background perspective of what was viewed
as legitimate or illegitimate in terms of public policy.
This posting offers another bit of evidence. The evidence comes to us indirectly. The New
York Times reports[1] on the
prevalence of “shell” companies that have sprung up and are busy buying real
estate in New York and other cities. The
Times reports that these companies
are a way for nefarious individuals to invest ill-gotten funds to the tune of
tens of millions of dollars and, by doing so, launder that money and keep it
hidden from government officials. In its
report, the paper claims that this is egregious on several fronts, and included
is the fact that this is an affront to a long held federalist bias. Let me quote the paper:
Public records, dating back to at
least the 1800s in New York, set real estate apart as more transparent than
bank accounts or stock portfolios. “There
is a whole Jeffersonian rhetoric about land ownership,” said Hendrik Hartog, a
professor of the history of American law at Princeton. “There was a goal to make land transparent,
and it was justified by civic values and a whole range of moral judgments like
not hiding ownership.”[2]
Why this exception for real
estate? In those days, real estate
overwhelmingly consisted of a home and a farm.
It determined, more than any other asset, in which federated arrangement
a person belonged. In order to function
as a federation, each member needed to know who his/her confederates were. Transparency was a must. But as the natural rights construct has taken
over as the main guide in determining our beliefs over governance and politics,
this has changed many of our views concerning public policy.
Included have been our requirements
concerning transparency in real estate ownership. As I have pointed out, this more current view
of governance and politics has put a premium on choice – individual choice. The currency of choice is, naturally,
money. As such, policy has become more
and more guided by an exclusionary concern for generating money streams for
communities as well as individuals. In
true natural rights thinking, the former mayor of New York, Michael R.
Bloomberg, pronounced on his weekly radio program – in the waning days of his
tenure – “If we could get every billionaire around the world to move here, it
would be a godsend.” Of course, not
every billionaire has acquired his/her funds engaging in activities that
promote the general welfare, the common good.
And so, policy in New York – actually in the US – has made it possible
for any shell company, be it a front for a legitimate business interest, an
unsavory interest, a foreign corrupt politician, or a criminal, to park his/her
money in a luxury condominium that might be priced at or above $25 million.
The details of how this happens and a
list of examples is provided in this lengthy article. Let me just share a host of problems this
practice has caused: one, it has become
harder, if not impossible, to recoup illegally obtained monies here in the US that
are so hidden from authorities; two, law authorities are hampered in
investigating crimes as it becomes very difficult to “follow the money;” three,
because US laws are so lax in this field, other countries use that fact to
justify their inaction to tighten their laws; and four, in addition to US
officials and other interests being unable to recover monies here, foreign
countries have similar problems in acquiring funds they are due from
individuals who have committed crimes or are evading taxes in their countries.
Bloomberg argued that lax laws, both
federal and local ones, were good for New York because the more billionaires
that make their way to his city, the more of their spending will make its way
down to regular folks – the trickle-down effect. It turns out that these folks spend very
little time in New York and their anonymity makes it difficult to tax them to
pay for the upkeep of the city. The city
is considering establishing a new property tax to be levied on the upper end
properties. One proposal would generate
$665 million a year. Given that these
individuals, the ones who are hidden and come from other countries, don’t vote,
perhaps such a plan might get instituted.
But that is beyond my purposes here.
Here, I want to point out evidence
that more federated-based views existed in the past and that those views have
been under challenge as we have moved past such biases. Unfortunately, as is often the case, changes
in human arrangements have unforeseen consequences, especially when
structurally we are still constituted under the assumptions of the previous
views.
* An apartment used for temporary residence or other
than primary residency.
No comments:
Post a Comment