Reason.tv: David Bernstein on Rehabilitating Lochner and the Freedom to Contract
"Either the Commerce Clause gives Congress a plenary power to regulate anything it pleases or it doesn't; and let's have that argument," says George Mason University law professor David Bernstein.
Bernstein goes after progressive attempts to limit economic freedom and liberty of contract in his new book Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform, a history of the 1905 case Lochner v. New York. The decision nullified a state law regulating work hours for bakers and became the impetus for a 40-year period where American courts protected economic liberty.
A Lochner rehabilitation has not been easy, Bernstein admits. Many legal experts see Lochner as on par with the infamous Dred Scott decision. The government's encroaching power under the Commerce Clause has also held the case for economic liberty back. But Bernstein remains hopeful and believes both liberals and conservatives have something to gain in reexamining Lochner's implications, which range from protecting the right to an abortion to striking down the health care act's individual mandate.
Approximately 6.36 minutes.
Hosted by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg; edited by Swain.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The subject law was a classic example of economic protectionism: for unions and for large, politically connected rent seekers.
How is this anything like Dred Scott?
It's anti-freedom and it has far reaching effects??? thats all I got.
from the progressive perspective?
It's only anti-freedom if you think that freedom means being forced into not making certain employment arrangements between two consenting parties.
If I want to work for 11 hours a day and my employer would like that also, Lochner protected me. New Dealers think they know better what I should do with myself and my time.
Is baking for the sake of getting baked okay with you, BakingforFreedom?
That depends on the content of the contract you signed with your drug dealer. Has the EPA done environmental studies on your doobie yet? Let us review that for you ...
OWH, Jr wrote a bad decision. Shock and awe.
Worst. Justice. Ever.
And deserving of all possible mockery.
...and counts coup on your not-quite-clever enough intellectual sophistry.
HEY YA HEY YA INSULT BY WHITE INDIAN HEAP LIKE INSULT BY SLOW BRAVE TOUCHED BY SPIRITS
You are *so* insensitive. Looks like you need to be sent in for re-diversity-and-sensitivity training.
Those weren't "spirits" touching him... more than likely, "uncles".
"Freedom of contract" is an oxymoron.
In what sense do you have a "liberty interest" in having the taxpayer pay up to enforce your contract?
Seems like the taxpayer -- not the contracting parties -- should have primacy in deciding which contracts will and will not be enforced.
Since when did the parties to a contract get the invioble privilege of summoning the government at their whim, taxpayers' views of the matter be damned?
In what sense do you have a "liberty interest" in having the taxpayer pay up to enforce your contract?
so you are against all govermnet enforcement of contracts? OK, deal. Lets privatize it all. Glad to meet another fellow ancap on here.
But the issue isn't contract enforcement. Its guys with guns showing up and actively preventing two consenting parties from engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange. It's not that I just don't want to pay for that, that actually lowers the tide for all the boats.
In what sense do you have a "liberty interest" in having the taxpayer pay up to enforce your contract?
Seems like the taxpayer -- not the contracting parties -- should have primacy in deciding which contracts will and will not be enforced.
Whooee, boy, where to begin.
One of the few legitimate functions of government, as traditionally understood for centuries under English common law (the source of most of our law in America) is the maintenance of a court system. An organized judiciary theoretically is desirable, as it provides a "peaceful" means of resolving disputes and making whole a plaintiff who has been wronged by the actions of another.
Taxpayers have a general interest in having such a resource available to all. You might not give a flying shit about this guy's case, but when the time comes and you've got a legitimate beef, you'll be glad the courts are open and available for you to pursue legal action, rather than having to show up at the defendant's house with a couple big friends with axe handles.
As far as the "taxpayers" deciding which contracts will and will not be enforced, well, in effect, they do - via the taxpayer-funded court system. A contract really is little more than an exchange of promises that is legally enforceable. There are various contracts that courts simply will not enforce, as against the public policy of the state.
For example, in some states, same-sex couples can get married or engage in civil unions. Other states will not recognize such "contracts." Another example: murder for hire. A contract to kill someone is uneneforceable. So if someone offers to pay you $10,000 to kill someone and you commit the murder, you can't sue the guy when he doesn't pay up.
And on and on...
Did you have a point? You just described the current anti-Lochner status quo.
No, he described one of the three basic duties of a minimal government (the others being protection of the nation from *armed* invasion and a minimal police force to protect individual citizens from *armed* crime).
I think including civil unions muddies the waters here. You can grant power of attorney to your life partner, and the courts will uphold that. You can bequeath him all your earthly possessions, etc. What you can't do is get him on your health insurance (although you often can).
The reason -- as I suspect you already know, but your debating partner may not -- is because civil marriage has grown to the point where it imposes obligations on non-contracting parties. Now, with a normal contract, you can't do that. Negative rights (like freedom of contract) never include the right to infringe on the rights of others, but government-invented positive rights always do.
Re: There is no "we",
You should refresh your memory on the meaning of "oxymoron," TINW. "Freedom" and "contract" cannot be contradictory by definition alone.
The governent is the one that wills itself upon agreements, TINW, not people. You have it exactly backwards.
You would be wrong in your appreciation. Even if all the loot extracted by force from the taxpayers went to cover the cost of courts, that does not give the taxpayer a stake in the agreement between two persons. The fact that people let themselves be robbed by thieves that fancy themselves "the authority" does not convey special privileges to the victims on the lives and businesses of other victims.
They don't. It is the government that gets itself involved in the agreements of most people by force, not by call or upon request. For instance: marriage, minimum wage laws, vaccination, home building...
In what sense do you have a "liberty interest" in having the taxpayer pay up to enforce your contract?
You just don't get it. In Libertopia there are no taxpayers since there are no taxes.
It always amazes me that people who espouse the "right to contract" get so bent out of shape when the weaker party in a negotiation (let's call them workers) tries to gather together to increase their bargaining power (say with a union). It's not so much a "right to contract" as a "right to contract for me but not for you."
Exactly. The people who bargain with their capital get the most powerful possible organization -- a corporation. Easy to organize, hard to destroy, and with a powerful centralized governance.
The people who bargain with their labor, in contrast, get the weakest possible organization -- the labor union: hard to start, easy to destroy, and with a weak system of governance.
Don't confuse republicans and libertarians.
Workers absolutely have the right to assemble and plan together (i.e, organize.) Just keep the government out of it.
In a truly free labor market, there would be no justification for right to work laws. If an employer agrees with voluntary association of workers (i.e, union) to only employ association members, so be it. That's freedom of contract.
So capital gets the government-sanctioned corporation with a plethora of legal rights, but labor gets nothing but a "voluntary association" with no legal standing whatsoever.
In other words, labor gets the no-gay-marriage treatment while corporations get the straight-marriage-only treatment.
Nice asymmetry you've got going there in favor of capital against labor, Q.
As I mean it, a corporation is just another "voluntary association". It's an association of shareholders, with constantly changing membership.
Yes, symmetry should allow corporations and unions to be treated identically by law. That's not even close to the current government structured reality, however.
The one specific short term reform I would argue for is changes to bankruptcy law to prevent companies from threatening to toss aside negotiated pay and benefits by way of bankruptcy. That's the law aiding and abetting abrogration of contracts, IMO.
Of course, bankruptcy law is all about the legal, structured, and supervised abrogation of contracts.
Agreed. It just seems like reorganization bankruptcies should be a little more painful for bondholders, shareholders, and especially management to encourage honest negotiation.
Oh yeah, it's a real tiptoe through the daisies for them as it is.
Unions are organized as corporations under state laws.
Unions are "easy to destroy"? Tell that to the AFL-CIO.
Re: There is no we,
So powerful, indeed, that a mere drop in consumer preference sends the corporation to the annals of history - see US Steel, Commodore Computers.... That powerful.
And don't forget eeeevill. Eeeevilll!!!
Now, now, "There's no we" - you're jesting, right?
"the most powerful possible organization -- a corporation"
lolwhut. Tell you what, start up a corporation and try to take out a state. Nothing big, just a little Central American or African state. Good luck.
It always amazes me when someone is too stupid to understand the difference between collective bargaining, and collective bargaining with special privileges built into law.
In other words, you constantly amaze yourself.
Dance, rectal. Dance.
Your mom, griefer. Always and forever, your mom, your mom, your mom.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your impotent attempts last time utterly failed, Danny. You like being impotent? Does it frustrate you? Do the lesions from your furious masturbation sting?
???
You're so stupid it's amazing.
What happend to you plan to get me banned from the message boards after I griefed the sh!t out of your posts?
Epi, you remember Elemenope? He quarreled with my estimation of Holmes. He thought that I was half baked to argue that Holmes was not a "great" justice.
I miss lmnop.
Is it a sign of progress that are current enemies are so idiotic?
I forgot all about lmnop. Didn't he leave around the time we got threaded comments?
I talked to him over at Radley's site a few months back. He just got too busy for H&R, and I think he also felt there was some sort of troll infestation, but I didn't know what he was talking about. Do you?
Do you mean the trolls or Holmes?
I think that's about when he stopped posting, though I'm pretty sure he said that he was still lurking but fed up with trolls and the other asses who post here. I usually see some posts of his on the Volokh Conspiracy whenever I get the chance to read the comments there.
Try this:
It always amazes me when people fail to understand that freedom to contract also means freedom not to contract, including the freedom of a business owner not to contract with a union if they don't want to.
Or this:
"It always amazes me when people fail to understand freedom."
In the end, that's what it always boils down to with these people.
People never amaze me. Emperor Penguins amaze me.
OK, Theseus amazed me, but no one else. Except Emperor Penguins.
Thank you for having the balls to say what we were all thinking, but were afraid to say.
It always amazes me when people fail to understand that freedom to contract also means freedom not to contract, including the freedom
Whoa... whoa... slow down there, cowboy. Freedom not to contract goes against pretty much everything we believe.
So you don't actually know the facts of the Lochner decision at all do you? Or read the decision?
It's not so much a "right to contract" as a "right to contract for me but not for you."
You do understand, of course, that under current labor law, that reads as "right to contract for unions, but not for employers', don't you. Because once the union is certified, the employer right to contract with anyone else for labor is severely constrained.
Re: erkinthefarnorth,
And you're absolutely right. What amazes me even more is how those that espouse the right to collectively bargain get so bent out of shape when employers exercise their own freedom NOT to contract with unions. It's not so much a "right to contract" as a "right to contract for me [unions] but not for you [employers.]"
On the off chance that (just about) the same court that wrote the Heller decision actually strikes down Obumacare as clear over-reach on the Commerce Clause, then I'd say we're on a definite roll for the good guys. At that point, I'd say a nice juicy 4th Amendment case should go soon and see if we can get a trifecta for Liberty.
Don't forget MacDonald v. Chicago. It might be tempting to roll that up into Heller, but it really does stand for its own significant proposition.
Drug War Exception to the 4th Amendment
No, I'm hoping for something clear enough to put the "war on drugs" crap to end also.
"Either the Non-Aggression Principle gives Free Families on the Land a plenary power to gambol* about plain and forest or it doesn't; and let's have that argument," says White Indian.
"Regulating the surface of Mother Earth with abstract lines and demarcations with the tyrannical purpose of restricting the free movement of free people is the biggest of big-government Land enTitlement programs of the agricultural-city-Statists."
________
* Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today?civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors?is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories."
In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: "The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all."
~Richard Manning
Against the Grain
Our very life depends on the Agricultural City State (civilization.)
Join us Libertarians, who promote the aggression of government and whitewash the State aggression that suits our interests with clever sophistry, while calling anybody else who does so a Statist.
It's fun!
..."Reason" [LOL!] regulars' evasion of logical argument regarding the Non-Aggression principle.
The Non-Aggression "principle" is merely a debate convenience, to be discarded when it conflicts with "Libertarian" interests.
What kind of hunting and/or trapping do you do?
He doesn't, H. He shops at White Rich Male Owned Supermarket Chain outlets just like most other folks.
I know, I have him pegged as a keyboard jockey when it comes to the "original afluent society". I agree with OM when he says Pale fool would cry at the sight of his dinner running away from him.
...the evasions that Libertarian sophistry creates to avoid discussion of the Non-aggression principle.
Officer, am I free to gambol across plain and forest?
Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun.
Speaking of just-so stories that sprung from the imagination of someone who never rooted for grubs or hunted for subsistence.
You evade your own stated principles.
You also evade reality. Read the Original Affluent Society by Marshall Sahlins.
Re: Girly man,
You and Marshall would cry like two little girls at the sight of your food running away from you if in your "original affluent society."
You're psychologically projecting your own submissive, domesticated fear of wilderness.
Re: White Imbecile,
And you would scream like a hysterical girl at the mere sight of a scorpion, whitey, inside your beloved "original affluent society."
Like a hysterical little girl, with no Raid.
No kidding.
There are millions of acres of bona fide wilderness in the US, and millions more of national and state parks.
Anyone who wanted to give the hunter/gatherer thing a go can certainly, and easily, do so without interference from the authorities.
So, give it a go, New Primitives: we'll even spot you modern clothing and simple tools.
Be sure to report back.
If you survive.
Anyone who wanted to give the hunter/gatherer thing a go can certainly, and easily, do so without interference from the authorities.
Whoa... whoa... slow down there, cowboy. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Gotta admit, either he gets *amazing* wi-fi out there in the forest, or he has a REALLY long ethernet cable.
Even though the landbase has been degraded, and most of the parks are on marginal land rejected by agriculture, some people have tried it.
And been arrested.
Officer, am I free to gambol across plain and forest?
Not a chance.
? But why should freedom of movement be relegated to only Parks?
? Isn't freedom of movement for everyplace?
? Isn't the Non-Aggression Principle for every place?
Still, "R C Dean" evades his abandonment of the Non-Aggression principle as a principle.
Re: White Imbecile,
There's also swapms, where by the way you would cry like the little wussy girl you are at the mere sight of one of your girly Nike's being stuck in the muddy water and being the dinner of a million bloodsuckers. Like a little girl, you girly-man.
And now we see the rationalizations begin as to why he can't do what RC suggests.
...H man's lack of principles regarding non-aggression.
Even though the landbase has been degraded, and most of the parks are on marginal land rejected by agriculture, some people have tried it.
And? How'd they do?
And been arrested.
Well, they weren't being very smart about it, then.
Seriously, get away from the hiking trails, and nobody would ever see you, or care if they did.
But why should freedom of movement be relegated to only Parks?
That's a different issue. I'm just pointing out that, if you were the least bit serious about the Free 'n' Easy Life of the Hunter/Gatherer, you can certainly give it a try in places where, with a little bit of smarts, no one will bother you.
How about you try poaching some game, R.C. Dean.
Libertarians are pissant busy-bodies with such nitwit advice...
Yet they can't rustle up a decent intellectual defense their own principles.
no one will bother you
Why should anybody "bother," that is, aggress, against him anywhere, Libert[LOL!]arian?
There are millions of acres of bona fide wilderness in the US, and millions more of national and state parks.
Are you resigning from your government cartel in protest of the freedom of contract?
JP, you win the non sequitur of the day. Enjoy.
Non-sequitur? LOL
That's all you've served up, dipshit.
You can't rustle up a decent intellectual defense your own principles.
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Could you stop shitting over every single fucking article White Idiot. We get it, you hate the government and want to return to a simpler time when we were running around trying not to be eaten by saber-toothed tigers.
Oh and defense != aggression.
You evade your own stated principles.
Ah, but not half as well as you do, you dipshit Romantic. You are long past your "best by" date.
...your hasty abandonment of principles when you assert, even falsely, that your intellectual enemies have abandoned theirs.
Didn't we just do this one last week with someone who was claiming that hunter gatherers live so much better off since they only "work" about 3 hours each day to get their food?
Short synopsis: fine, they're freer, but whether they live better is open to debate. If a warm bed and not having to worry about starvation or disease are lost, then I'd rather work a bit more. But that's just me. Maybe you like burying wives who died in childbirth and old men of, oh, 50 or so.
Sigh. Somebody with coding skills needs to tweak incif so we can skip posts based on content. White Injun is changing handles too fast to keep up.
GAMBOLING
No, dipshit, GAMBOLING is illegal because of libertarians.
I thought libertarians were supported of all forms of gamboling including online gamboling. I think White Indian is just upset that there's more competion these days for casino gamboling.
If you try to gambol your way across the plains, you'll probably run out of money before you make it.
...and counts coup on your intellectual evasions.
Got blank-out?
The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy [Mother Earth,] language, [whole peoples by genocide] and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality?is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish. ~Ayn Rand [fixed]
Its an admin-level solution, already to hand, to wit:
Banhammer.
Pixelated diarrhea, etc.
The admins like it this way. Don't you?
Hey Matt, can you tell us in your own words what your favorite thing about this troll is? You can't use "gamboling", I've already taken it.
COUP
EVASIONS
A = A
Hey Matt, can you tell us in your own words what your favorite thing about this troll is? You can't use "gamboling", I've already taken it.
Ratings.
BANHAMMER !!
...your intellectual evasion of your own "principles."
The Non-Aggression Principle is a debating convenience with which to hammer opponents, not to hold as any fundamental concept.
supposed to be a reply to T
crap. it's threaded turtles all the way down.
? Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
? Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
? General poverty in major affective reactions.
? Specific loss of insight.
? Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
? Superficial charm [such as Libertarian religio-economic sophistry] and average intelligence.
characteristics of a psychopath, defined by Dr. Hervery M. Cleckley, M.D. in his 1941 book Mask of Sanity
A nice summary of White Indian's participation in these discussions.
A nice summary of Libertarian responses to White Indian's participation in these discussions.
I mock your evasion of any discussion of your own stated non-aggression principles.
I've proven you have no principles.
Libertarianism is merely a clever sophistry of government for me and not for thee.
Re: There is no we,
"Participation"? In this moment of triumph? I think you're overestimating WI's chances!
An assertion that readily tells me you have no idea what Libertarianism stands for.
...OM for having no idea what Libertarianism stands for, while he evades discussion of the Non-Aggression principle.
White Indian is the King of the appeal to authority.
...your anti-intellectualism.
White Indian is the King of scholarly references.
"robc" is the King of Argument from Intimidation.
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. ~Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi.....ation.html
Re: White Imbecile,
Or at least the king of useless Google hits. None of which will help you avoid crying like a little girl at the sight of your fingernails being broken while you hungrily dig the earth for some roots to eat, inside your beloved "original affluent society."
...Old Mexican's submissive, domesticated, effeminate fear of wilderness.
Re: White Imbecile,
Wow, big words for such a wussy, wussy little girly-man!
You would cry like a little girl at the mere sight of squirrels getting away with your meager food supply in your "original affluent society". Like a little girl, girly-man!
Let's go! Let's find out if I'm wrong, girly-man! Let's see if you can survive your "original affluent society"!
...if his Libertarian fantasy was every realized.
Meanwhile, he evades discussion of his own stated principles.
I'd bet ten bucks he's never done anything outdoorsier than pick up hedge apples.
I'd bet ten bucks FIFY has never done anything anything more libertarian that fuck somebody out of money with fine print and call it an honest contract.
Meanwhile, FIFY evades discussion of his own stated principles.
Because he's intellectually bankrupt.
Um, that wouldn't be an honest contract and therefore not very libertarian. God damn you are stupid.
I'd bet ten bucks FIFY has never done anything anything more libertarian that fuck somebody out of money with fine print and call it an honest contract.
Meanwhile, FIFY evades discussion of his own stated principles.
Because he's intellectually bankrupt.
No bet.
Oh so you are also White Idiot. That explains a lot.
Anyone who argues against liberty of contract is a slaver. If you don't have the right to negotiate your own interactions with others, then SOMEONE ELSE DOES.
I think the response to this will always somehow involve representative democracy, the polling place, and choosing your leaders wisely.
Because it makes so much difference when a large group of complete strangers picks your new owner for you.
I remember the first time I came across this in its most bold form, in regards to healthcare. During a debate about government healthcare not being responsive to consumer needs, the counter-argument was actually, "If you don't like the healthcare you got [they amputated the wrong limb] your recourse is the ballot box. So it will be responsive."
I was stunned. And deeply concerned for my fellow man.
This is all too common. Makes me shudder. These poor, duped, useful idiots.
Lochner was a bad ruling on factual grounds because it treated liberty of person under due process to include liberty of contract and not the ancient rule of physical restraint. You have to be a pretty motivated liberal incorporationists to want a return of Lochner.
If libertarians abandon their own non-aggression principle when arguing with that White Indian, are they any more trustworthy in business contracts?
The USFS does not have Park Rangers - that is the NPS, which is under the DOI, not the USDA.
Lochner rules. Listen to the wise hard-headed German baker.
Rump, you're the reason I always hire people from the anti-State party of principle that has a government statue as it's symbol.
If they can't grasp or defend vast principles, they are at least pedantic enough to catch my editorial mistakes.
Thanks, rumper.
"If they can't grasp or defend vast principles"
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Sanitation is an oppressive construct of the agricultural city state. In the natural ordure we were meant to play with our feces. I still do - it is all I know. Wallow with me - PUHleaze!
...Sanitized.
+1,000,000!