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:
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 Jeremy West, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, April 14, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, May 13, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jeremy West, all rights reserved.