The Fed Giveth, the Fed Taketh Away

As a deluge of furious Twitterees were mistakenly web-razing the @SCOTUSblog and clergy distributed condoms in a “creative, faith-based protest” of the SCOTUS decision, Friedrich von Hayek was quietly clapping in his Viennese grave while the United States’ highest court shifted America into reverse on her road to serfdom. As voices were raised and veins bulged over the newly discovered “right to contraceptives,” Hayek was reminded of something similar he had seen in Germany and Russia: was not this tendency towards government solutions and centralization similar?

This tendency had its ultimate formulation in ‘planned economies.’ Partly because of a desire to harness the industrial complexes created by World War I and II, and partly because of a new definition of freedom, “planned economies” became fashionable. No longer was political freedom restricted to absence of unjust coercion, but liberty from all constraints: natural and social, as well as economic. Freedom became interpreted primarily in economic terms and reframed as ‘economic security.’ Thus poverty itself became an obstacle to man’s freedom. Only the predicted wealth resulting from planned societies would provide true freedom: liberty from all constraints. Hayek writes that, in this frame of mind, “Only socialism was capable of effecting the consummation of the age-long struggle for freedom, in which the attainment of political freedom was but a first step.”

No one is clamoring too loudly for a planned economy today, but the desire for federal government to ensure a positive liberty – a right – to contraceptives is an example of the centralization which Hayek feared. He noted that centralization unavoidably coincides with the forcible imposition of a single set of values. Further, he notes, when it comes to specific matters, “there will be almost as many views about what the government should do as there are different people.”

But the only manner in which a society could approve the government to act in such matters would be if society also grants government the authority to enforce one set of moral views. With only one authority to decide the actions, only one conception of values can be written into law.

The recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision is a fine example of this conflict. As Health and Human Services tries to expand the scope of the federal government regarding very specific and controversial matters, it becomes obvious that this cannot be a neutral action. While religious objectors are allowed to opt out of paying for employee’s contraceptives, Justice Alito’s opinion defined contraceptives as a “compelling government interest” and which insurance companies must provide access to via a third party. Though religious liberty appears to be preserved, the Supreme Court nonetheless endorses a positive view about the morality of contraception and abortifacients by ensuring subsidized access. If federal government becomes the solution for every ill, then America will find herself with only one moral system, in the name of ‘economic security.’

Whatever one’s view on the morality of contraception, it is far better that the moral judgment of those matters rests with smaller communities than the federal government. While social conservatives might rejoice that the Supreme Court rejected the violation of religious consciences, they should be wary of attempting to enforce social morals at a federal level. Progressives, too, should be careful in seeking that their ‘sexual rights’ be ensured by the government. Every power sought from the federal government is also ceded to the federal government. Only as long as the moral vision of the federal government aligns with the moral vision of progressives will they be consensual bedfellows.

Conservatives, too, must ask why – although the decision is based upon the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act – how long can religious liberty coexist with such government centralization? It is sobering that contraceptives are termed a “compelling government interest.” Our tendency to appeal to the federal government to solve local and personal problems must result in the imposition of a particular moral scheme upon the nation. What the Fed giveth, the Fed taketh away. Blessed be the Fed.