Conservative Constitutionalist with Colin McKim

A free market form was one of the founding principles of the United States. A cornerstone of conservatism is that the government should rarely interfere in markets, acknowledging that the public is capable of making decisions that benefit society through the wonders of trade.

Yet over time, governments around the world have entrenched themselves deeper into the affairs of business and trade, and now many promise that they can fix the very economic problems they helped create. Proposals call for more state control over the economy, running completely contrary to laissez-faire principal that is so important to classical conservatives. Governments exercise this control principally through business regulations and a centralized monetary system.

In response, many businesses throughout the world are beginning to return to the traditional way of doing business that existed long before the creation of governments: bartering.

As the global recession continues to deepen, world credit markets have largely frozen up, unwilling to make loans despite large injections of cash into the money supply by the world’s central banks. On top of this, many businesses have doubts about the value of currencies when they want to carry out transactions; the inflation and volatility caused by central banks may mean a exchange of dollars may soon not be as equitable as planned.

Fortunately, bartering, a system of trade exists which does not require the use of artificial currencies, exists. Bartering is the true, original form of trade. Commodities are exchanged for other commodities, depending on the needs of the parties involved and the relative values of goods and services, which are determined by the participating parties.

Commodities can take the form of anything seen to hold an intrinsic or inherent measure of worth, ranging from basic necessities to precious metals. Exchanges of services also can be very beneficial to both parties through bartering. Farmers exchanging crops or livestock with other farmers who grew different crops probably was one of the first widespread bartering systems. Both parties benefit and no government is needed to mediate the transaction.

Founding father Thomas Jefferson once said “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” It is becoming increasing clear that the U.S. government is anything but frugal, and if recent history is any indicator, this government also seems incapable of making wise spending decisions. Instead, governments are doing the exact opposite of what Jefferson advised, assuming they know how to best regulate business.

Bartering can offer a way out of this regulatory boondoggle.

Although the IRS tries to regulate bartering with the income tax, the fact that it is so easy to conceal makes it difficult to find just how much bartering takes place. And exactly how a simple exchange of goods or services can be considered “income” to both parties and therefore subject to direct taxation is truly ridiculous. Such a policy discourages efficient allocation of products in the marketplace by assigning numerical currency values  (which are taxed) to products, instead of recognizing that products have actual value to the parties.

The current bartering boom is largely due to the Internet, which facilitates bartering by connecting people and businesses offering goods and services. Various bartering Web sites, themselves for-profit businesses, serve as moderators for bartering exchanges. The International Reciprocal Trade Association is a nonprofit based in Portsmouth, Va., that regulates and provides standards for these modern barter-service companies. The association estimates that more than $16 billion worth of business is exchanged annually through barter exchanges in North America alone, with significant growth potential.

New online barter exchanges are springing up worldwide, using innovative systems to make operating an exchange both profitable and beneficial to members.

Asia’s biggest barter trade site, Barterxchange.com, connects over 600 businesses in Malaysia and Singapore and up to half a million businesses participating in over a dozen barter exchanges around the world. Barterxchange’s membership has grown by 30 percent since 2007 as businesses find barter as an easy way to expand their operations without having to borrow money.

Some barter exchanges create their own type of monetary system, translating the values of the goods or services offered into credits. Members gain these credits when another member takes them up on an offer, and lose them when find an offer useful to them. This method does not require the products be of equal value, as these credits can be exchanged interchangeably at any time. The exchange operator takes a small cash cut as a transaction fee, depending upon the scale of the transaction. Old-fashioned barter sites like Craigslist are seeing increased usage as well, with Craigslist reporting an increase of 100 percent in activity on its barter boards.

Cash-strapped businesses and individuals are finding barter a great way to establish relationships with potential future trade partners while at the same time circumventing complex banking procedures. Barter has a new lease on life, a resurgence of an age-old practice is taking place with the help of an unexpected tool — technology.

Conservative Constitutionalist with Colin McKim

The Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) is likely to move forward in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week. This sounds like a great piece of legislation from the name, but one doesn’t have to think long about the implications of the bill to see it as one of the biggest power grabs in history. This bill seeks to amend and replace the regulative authority of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act over only navigable waters to all water within the United States. The way the bill is worded exempts no drop of water in the United States from federal jurisdiction, drawing no clear distinction between whether it is in a national park or is being used to irrigate crops.

“With its claim of authority over ‘all interstate and intrastate waters,’ this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country. Neither an ornamental pond nor the proverbial kitchen sink are excluded,” says M. Reed Hopper, Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The bill lays the framework for unprecedented control over private property by the federal government. As the current law generally only affects navigable waters (one a boat can float on), its authority is largely constitutional under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Although federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have often pushed the limits of their jurisdiction over water bodies, this amendment gives them free reign over all water, wherever it is located. The U.S. Supreme Court sought to clarify the extent of the jurisdiction of these federal agencies under the Clean Water Act in cases in 2001 and 2006. The courts ruled that for waters to be federally regulated, they must be relatively permanent or directly adjacent to a navigable waterway. But this amendment seeks to return and expand excessive jurisdictional leeway over water on private land to these agencies.

Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau, explains, “The legislation would grant — for the first time ever — the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all wet areas within a state, including groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, municipal storm drains and gutters. It would grant these same agencies — for the first time ever — authority over all activities affecting those waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in water or adds a pollutant…”

What does this mean for the typical residential landowner? Likely, a lot of hassle, expense and time spent in court. The legislation clearly states “all waters.” Those of you with farm, stock and even goldfish ponds – beware.”
Senator Barbara Boxer of California has cosponsored this bill (along with 23 others) to show her support for this statist approach to complete environmental control. An identical bill in the House gained 176 cosponsors before expiring at the end of the session. This bill proposes to grant federal legislative governance over the most essential compound for life, a power far surpassing moral and constitutional bounds. Would even the water within your body’s cells be owned by the federal government? There are no clear bounds to the potential newfound authority of this bill, and that is why it must be stopped. Water contained on private property would be at the mercy of federal regulators to determine what the owner can and cannot do to it. As water fills soil pores, essentially this amendment transfers landowners’ rights to the federal government. The EPA and Corps would be free to dictate land management practices anywhere, without compensating landowners for the cost of the restrictions. This also brings up Fifth Amendment concerns, as arguably private property is being commandeered for public use without any promise of ‘just compensation.’

Meanwhile, the U.N. and its globalist cronies over at the Council on Foreign Relations are pushing for the Senate to ratify the Convention on Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) proposes to put “all ocean space” under the control of the U.N.’s Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS). DOALOS would have the authority to regulate all the resources the oceans provide, including the seafloor, air above the oceans, fishing and shipping. This treaty would give the U.N. control over 71 percent of the earth’s surface and override traditional territorial waters along coastlines. The treaty has not had any major action taken on it in the Senate after it was first introduced in 1982. The president, vice-president and secretary of state have in the past argued for the passage of the treaty, and is now being promoted under the guise of piracy control. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in January that pushing for ratification of the treaty would be one of her top priorities under the Obama administration.

While the treaty has signed and ratified by 156 countries and the European community, but that is not any excuse to hand over such enormous power to any centralized government. As a consequence of the ocean’s interconnectedness to the atmosphere and land’s water that flows into it, the treaty may be used as a back door for the U.N. to push global pollution and carbon emission regulations on the United States without having to pass any more treaties. There is no harm that can come from the United States not ratifying the treaty, and only the possibility of abuse from the U.N. if we do. Contact your senators and representative today to alert them to the ominous potentials of S. 787 and LOST.

Read S. 787 by clicking here.

Read the Law of the Sea here.