Topic: Government Regulation
Government regulation: Not just immoral
Initiating force (or the threat of force) is not only an immoral way to deal with problems, it is simply inneffective.
by Jeremy West
(libertarian)
Monday, April 14, 2008
I normally argue against government regulations on moral grounds: It is simply immoral for the government to initiate force (or threaten force) against people who have not harmed anyone. Hence, kidnapping non-violent drug users and putting them in prison is unethical.
It hit me today that not only is government regulation unethical, it is also ineffective. We already know that the percentage of people who use drugs is no less today than it was before drug prohibition began. People who really want drugs find a way to get them (and when drugs are illegal, many people are harmed in the process. See the film Maria, Full of Grace as a great example).
Companies who want to do things as cheaply as possible will find ways to get around environmental regulations. Companies who believe telemarketing is an effective way of advertising will find ways to get around government do-not-call lists. Individuals who don't want to support welfare will figure out a way to cheat on their taxes.
No, using the government to force people to do what you want is not an effective way to spend your money or your time. Why not go directly to drug users (or better yet to people who have not yet started using drugs) and give them the honest truth about drugs? If the environment is your issue, you might find yourself more effective making one scary documentary than you ever were in decades of politics. Why use my money to make a new government bureaucracy to combat telemarketing calls when you can start up a service and actually earn money by helping people block out unwanted calls, and do it far more effectively? Why not spend your time lobbying people to give to private charities rather than lobbying the government to raise taxes?
Government force isn't just wrong. It's ineffective. Whatever your hot-button political issue, figure out how to convince people directly and instead of creating a new hurdle for them to find a way around, you'll have helped them see your way legitimately, making them look for ways to (for example) minimize their harm to the environment.
If you enjoyed this article, please use the buttons above to digg it and subscribe to The Jeremy West Column. Then enjoy my other articles below:
Why I am a Voluntaryist (II): Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet
Why I am a Voluntaryist (I): Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
On labels [or: Why I’m now calling myself a voluntaryist rather than a libertarian]
Common Objections to Liberty (III): But who would take care of the roads?
Why the Libertarian Party Doesn’t Work (at getting someone elected)
Gay marriage – California Supreme Court issues Ellen DeGeneres & Portia de Rossi permission slip
Common Objections to Liberty (II): There are too many stupid people in the world
Common Objections to Liberty (I): Who would pay for medical research in a libertarian world?
From Ron Paul to Mary Ruwart: The rEVOLution continues
Ron Paul wrong on immigration
Nothing more interesting than NFL Draft?
Government regulation: Not just immoral
©2008 Jeremy West, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, April 14, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, August 23, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Jeremy West only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeremy West is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Jeremy West of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Jeremy West |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-04-15 07:05:49
Largely true, although I think I might say it a bit differently. Government force is highly effective at creating chaos, undermining individual rights, and creating a climate of fear and apprehension among decent, caring people of goodwill. It is largely ineffective at achieving real security; social, political, economic, and environmental improvement; and most of the positives its defenders claim for it.
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-15 10:31:52
Yes, allow us to go back to the days when the US had no food and drug administration.
Such claims that all government regulation does not work supports quackery, the very same quackery that Ron Paul seems to advocate.
The FDA has made drugs a lot safer today than they were 100 years ago. It has forced companies to ensure that their drugs were effective and safe to a degree. Anyone who wants Bayer to go back to the days when they were selling Opium and Heroin should reconsider by saying that excessive government regulation is the problem.
Most people like the fact that drug companies are held accountable while quacks simply say that their product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any disease.
Posted By: creator
Date: 2008-04-28 08:01:12
Lloyd,
I considered simply chalking your comments up to pure ignorance, but the very fact that you write and comment on Nolan Chart is prima-facie evidence that you have internet access and are able to check the facts.
Had you bothered to do something as simple as Google "prescription drug death statistics," you would have found that prescription drugs kill tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. All the FDA does is provide a bogus aura of safety that does not exist.
You can read, for example, about the Vioxx debacle in the New England Journal of Medicine here:
Furthermore, accusing Ron Paul of "quackery" simply further reveals your inherent anti-liberty bias.
Your claim that the FDA has made drugs "a lot safer today than they were 100 years ago" is the only "quackery" I see going on here. Yes, please do let us go back to the days when the US had no FDA, and let us make our own decisions and evaluations based on the inherent merits of a product, not on how much money some pharmaceutical company spent lobbying a government agency.
Posted By: Michael Thorne
Date: 2009-02-05 21:40:05
For nearly my entire life, I've been mostly apathetic towards politics. Since I didn't feel I had any control over it, I saw no point in expending time and energy to learn about it. Several months ago, I came across some very eye-opening documentaries out there like "Money as Debt" and "Freedom to Fascism", among others, and wanting to know if these movies were really telling the truth, I began Googling on the subject of the Federal Reserve which lead me down the path to learn about Mises, Rothbard, and free-market economics in general.
Who would have ever imagined that economics would be so fascinating!?! Not I. At least, not until I realized that the economic model on which the US is based leads inevitably to monetary devaluation, forced over-consumption, bankruptcy, and huge class separation. Economic models form the foundations of society. Operating under the wrong model is disastrous.
The idea that private enterprises take up the roles that are served by government agencies is somewhat terrifying, because it is so radical, and yet I find myself more and more drawn to this concept. There are many non-profits who do a far superior job of protecting the rights of civilians than the government does. They exist BECAUSE they work. If they didn't work, their funding would dry up, and a competing organization that worked better would fill in that market niche.
I'd love to find really well put together citations of real world examples of how successful government regulation has been. Basically ... a list of the problems that government agencies try to address, accompanied by statistics that show how these agencies have either succeeded or failed. Do you know of any such source? I'd start to put one together, but I imagine it would be better to just add to one that already exists.
I think that regulation IS required. I just don't think that government provides that regulation in an effective manner. Take, for example the idea of a corporation that has factories. Without regulation, the factories could pollute the water supply or air and cause untold health damages to the people in the surrounding areas. Obviously, there has to be some system in place to prevent this kind of abusive behavior. Class action lawsuits work. In the absence of government agencies who are supposed to protect us from these things, non-profit (or profit) agencies could step in to fulfill these needs. There are hundreds/thousands of cases where regulation is crucial because without a way to hold corporations accountable for their actions, they will literally get away with murder.
It's very natural for people to be scared of incredibly dramatic change, like abolishing government. But I think that if a systematic plan by which government agencies could be disassembled, and allow the free market to fulfill these demands, then it would be easier for people to adopt this way of thinking. You can't just put a stop to the government overnight. This would lead to mayhem, and more importantly is far too scary a proposal to ever get wide-spread adoption. You have to start by breaking up the agencies which can most effectively be taken over by the free market. Allow people to see that the free market was more successful than government and fulfilling their needs in these areas, and they will embrace breaking down other branches of government.
Please, tell me if there are good sites out there where planning of this kind can be put together.