The teens of the last century were certainly the birth of the nanny state. Nearly every preliminary measure needed to create the nanny state was passed in that decade.

Three measures preceded the teens, and those helped to set the stage, First, the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 gave notice and created a tool to allow the federal government to regularly and intrusively meddle in economic matters, something it had largely left to the states prior tot hat time. Second, the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 created a tool which allowed the government to bring both civil and criminal actions against business for relatively ill defined cause, serving as the prototype for all sorts of discretionary federal economic powers. Finally, the creation of the Food and Drug Administration in 1908 gave notice that the federal government was going to control which voluntary exchanges would and would not be allowed.

However, it wasn't until the teens that the principle that the state would tell us what was good for us and would regulate absolutely everything came to fruition. Whether it was the banning of narcotics in 1914, the exclusion of undesirable immigrants in 1914, the federalization of banking in 1913, the government very swiftly set itself up as the arbiter of all things. And lest the states complain, this was also the time at which the states were stripped of most power. Through the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments the states were stripped of control over the federal purse strings and of representation in the government. The message was clear, the feds know best and you WILL listen.

It is not coincidental that the era of political deportation, book bannings, business prosecutions, and all manner of coercive federal action began in the late teens. And, despite the impression many have of the free wheeling, pro-business 1920's, the truth is the feds continued to exercise coercive control throughout the entire decade. Despite the myths, Hoover did not fiddle while Wall Street burned, he instituted the same stupidities as FDR would later use to supposedly "end " the depression, trade barriers, price supports, inflation and all other manner of intervention. Why? Because he was a die hard interventionist, as were all members of both parties in the 1920's. Don't forget that Hoover's first post had been as Secretary of Commerce during the supposedly "pro-business" Harding administration. Despite the myths, the Republicans of the 1920's were more like the soft-money, protectionist Republicans of the 19th century, while the Democrats had already shifted into the interventionist, "reform" Democrats they would be from the 1930's until the 1968 fracture of the party. The last free market politician of either party was Grover Cleveland, and even then he did not recognize the beliefs of many in his Democrat Party.

Of course the grandiose changes came a bit later. Turning the FBI into a true national police force in 1934, the creation of social security, the banning of monetary gold, the creation of the NLRB, the destruction of the Lochner ruling, all during the reign of FDR. But those were the later stages. They did not create the nanny state, any more than did the Great Society under Johnson. No, the stage was set much earlier, during the Wilson administration.

Then again, I suppose one could counter my argument with a rebuttal that the real turning point was the 1890's, with the creation of the ICC, the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the ruling Munn v Illinois, the infiltration of the Populists into the Democrats, destroying the laissez-faire, pro-gold Democratic party, while the Republicans remained largely protectionist neo-mercantilists, perhaps with some admixture of "reform Republicans" and Bull Moose populists. And that would be a viable argument, the 1890's definitely marked the end of the free market as a viable political position.

And another could probably argue that the Civil War was actually the point at which the US changed. With the loss of the Democrats as a viable political party (at least for a few decades), the cause of a confederacy instead of a centralized federation* was decided, the question of states' rights was removed from the table and the day of the strong central government began. And there are certainly signs that these were the first blows against freedom. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the use of troops against civilian populations in border states, the use of coercive drafts for the first time, the first national issue of fiat currency in the form of "greenbacks" not backed by gold, and the first federal income tax **.  Not to mention the questionable propriety of fighting a war to prevent a state from seceding at all, as well as the creation of the National Banking system in 1863 which created a system which, by centralizing banking reserves in a few New York banks, as well as establishing the principles that banks were federally regulated and that national debt would be used to back currency, served as a clear precursor of the Federal Reserve system, and also marked the first time an entire sector of the economy was removed from state jurisdiction.

Even before that there were several instances of the federal government overstepping its authority. The struggle over the Second Bank of the United States, for example, though eventually decided for the forces favoring  the free market, was definitely one of the earlier attempts to create a more regimented economy. Or the many arguments over whether states should be allowed to enter as "slave" or "free", rather than leaving it a question for the states themselves, marks an early salvo in the battle between states' rights and the central government***.

Which means that, despite my rather certain beginning, I am no longer convinced of my own thesis. The teens definitely were quite an important time for the destruction of freedom, but, after some thought, it is possible to make arguments for many other periods as well. Perhaps that would be a better approach then. Instead of trying to pick one turning point, perhaps I should instead simply trace the loss of liberty within the United States, be it the centralizing of power, the destruction of economic liberties, the growth of nanny concepts, or the erosion of value and confidence in currency.

Well, it is a bit too late for me to do that tonight. I suppose I shall add yet one item to my list of waiting projects.

Every day I am thankful I have such patient readers, as otherwise my lengthy "to do" list would seem rather daunting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

* Though I say I am a federalist, I use that term as opposed to a proponent of a central government. In reality, I am a confederate, but that term has a rather negative connotation in modern time. But historically, "confederation" was used for a decentralized government with strong individual states (with supporters of the same being "confederates", I suppose), while Federalist (such as the party of Washington and Hamilton) was used to describe supporters of a system with more central power and weaker states.

** Let this be a warning tot hose who say the FairTax bill is safe as it won't become active until the 16th Amendment is repealed. First of all, new taxes can still be created outside of income taxes, so there is no assurance the FairTax will be the only tax. Second, even if it is the only "tax", what stops us from seeing other "fees", "dues", "contributions", "investments", etc. And finally, my point in this footnote, the 16th Amendment was a half century in the future when the first federal income tax was enacted, so there is no certainty eliminating the 16th Amendment will eliminate the risk of an income tax on top of the FairTax.

*** Actually, the whole question of "slave" or "free" seems a bit bizarre. So long as slavery was not outlawed entirely in the US, especially after Dred Scott  prevented one state from depriving a citizen of rights he had in another, it would seem property rights to slaves would have to be honored in all states. And since property rights include the right to buy and sell, it would seem Dred Scott, or even the principles upon which it was based which predate that decision, would have made all states effectively "slave". I am not saying this is a good outcome, just that it is the only outcome consistent with Dred Scott and the general economic principles behind our federal state, as well as principles such as "full faith and credit".