More Licensing Madness
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
Thanks to laws enacted by the government on behalf of the funeral lobby, Monks can’t sell simple caskets:
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Friday
August 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
Thanks to laws enacted by the government on behalf of the funeral lobby, Monks can’t sell simple caskets:
Saturday
August 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Liberty & Limited Government
Last time I was in Time Square, I passed a couple people selling humorous Barack Obama condoms on a street corner. I was amused and proud of everything represented by this simple act of commerce: freedom, expression, and capitalism. I am sad to learn now that those same individuals might be the ones in this case, who have just been harassed by the government because they don’t have proper vendor licenses.
The defendants argued that their product was a form of speech, and therefore should be protected by the first amendment. This should have been a compelling argument, as I find it doubtful that most of their tourist customers purchased the condoms for actual use. The judge felt differently, “holding that the novelty prophylactics constituted commercial speech, not constitutionally protected persuasive speech.”
While hardly the most outrageous instance of license enforcement, this case is just another in a long line of examples showing how such laws are antithetical to a free society. They prevent people the right to pursue the occupation of their choice, place undue burdens on many entrepreneurs, and even serve as a basis to limit free speech.
Licensing laws are one of the many ways in which the nanny state purports to protect us from ourselves. What usually happens, however, is that such laws are used as a means to protect a cartel and drive up the price of labor (doctors, lawyers, etc.), or as an abusive revenue source for the government, like in the case of little Julie Murphy, the 7-year-old girl who was recently harassed because she didn’t have a license for her lemonade stand.
What’s worse is the number of completely harmless occupations which the government licenses, removing any doubt that their aim is not really to protect. The Institute for Justice, for instance, recently forced the Louisiana government to reconsider it’s outrageously arbitrary licensing regime for florists.
One man was thrown in jail simply for helping someone draft a letter in response to being fined. The cartel of lawyers doesn’t want people moving in on their turf who don’t charge $500 an hour.
Fully 30% of occupations require government licenses. Most of these professions provide no real risk to the consumer that due diligence could not protect them from. The U.S. Constitution protects the right of all to earn an honest living in the occupation of their choice, but these laws stand in the way of that fundamental right. It’s time for the government to get out of the business of licensing business.
Tuesday
July 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
Iain Murray writes at the Washington Examiner that advocacy groups Change.org and the Alliance for Climate Protection are arguing – in an email entitled, “Don’t Let BP Win!” – that “Stalling climate and energy legislation would be a big win for oil companies like BP, but a huge loss for the rest of us.” Someone must have forgot to tell the lobbyists at BP, because as I previously noted, they have endorsed the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill. BP and other big corporations understand what the statists that routinely push for government intervention in the market do not: big government policy ultimately benefits big business the most.
The first responsibility of a corporation is to their shareholders, and contrary to popular belief, they are not dependable advocates of capitalism. Given half a chance, they will gladly use the power of government to their own benefit by restricting competition. They always have the greater means and motivation to capture federal regulator agencies, and deploy the force of government to benefit their special interest, than do the high-minded reform groups that often called for intervention in the first place. If Change.org really wanted to ensure that BP does not “win,” they would fight against big government interventionism, thus denying BP and other corporations the ability to manipulate government force for their own benefit.
Monday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets
Shakespeare would likely describe the latest major legislation winding its way through Congress as a piece of legislation crafted by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Rather than address the systemic distortions created by prior government policies, and which caused the financial meltdown, policy makers are now “[putting] a lot of faith in the watchful eye of regulators to prevent another financial crisis,” according to the Washington Post.
Nearly two years after tremors on Wall Street set off a historic economic downturn, congressional leaders greenlighted a bill early Friday that would leave the financial industry largely intact but facing a more powerful network of regulators who could impose limits on risky activities.
The final bill took shape after a 20-hour marathon negotiation between House and Senate leaders seeking to reconcile their separate versions. The legislation puts a lot of faith in the watchful eye of regulators to prevent another financial crisis. New agencies would police consumer lending, the invention of financial products and the trading of exotic securities known as derivatives. Bank supervisors would have the power to seize large, troubled financial firms whose collapse could threaten the entire system. The bill calls for banks to hold more money in reserve to weather economic storms but leaves the details to regulators.
…”We are poised to pass the toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression,” Obama said at the White House, adding that the bill “represents 90 percent of what I proposed when I took up this fight . . . We’ve all seen what happens when there is inadequate oversight and insufficient transparency on Wall Street.”
Essentially, Congress has decided that all we need is yet more overpaid bureaucrats. No reform of Fannie and Freddie. No efforts to stop politicians from continuing to force banks to issue risky loans so that they can point to expanding home-ownership under their watch. Instead, we get harmful price controls on debit cards, which has nothing to do with the cause of the 2008 recession.
Even the crafters of the bill aren’t really buying their own stance that more government will help. In one of those rare moments where a politician accidentally let’s the truth slip out, Senator Dodd admitted, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”
Belief in big government really is all about faith.
Thursday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Friday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets, Government Meddling
Anyone who understands economics knew this would be the result of “Cash for Clunkers:”
Thanks to Coyote Blog for the analysis.
Wednesday
June 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
I’ll give you a hint: the answer isn’t government regulation and fines.
Wednesday
May 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
Kevin Costner, of all people, has a device to clean oil out of water:
Costner’s $24 million centrifuge machine has a Los Angeles-perfect name, “Ocean Therapy.”
Placed on a barge, it sucks in oily water, separates out the oil and spits back clean water.
“It’s like a big vacuum cleaner,” said Costner’s business partner, Louisiana trial lawyer John Houghtaling.
The “Field of Dreams” star told reporters he started paying a team of scientists millions to create the device after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, while working on his epic 1995 flop “Waterworld.”
…Costner’s has 300 machines in various sizes, with the largest able to clean water at a rate of 200 gallons a minute, WDSU-TV reported.
Fantastic. This is how things gets done in a free society. Instead of sitting on his hands waiting for government to solve a problem after Exxon Valdez, a private citizen (albeit a rich and famous one) pursued an idea to make something better, and now it can be of use where government so clearly is not.
Thursday
May 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Free Markets
Wal-Mart is pledging $2 billion to “help fight hunger:”
Wal-Mart announced plans Wednesday to donate $2 billion over five years to food banks and hunger relief organizations, one of the largest charitable efforts that the nation’s largest grocer has undertaken.
…
“Increasingly, we see opportunities to use this scale and reach to solve challenges in our community,” said Eduardo Castro-Wright, head of the retailer’s U.S. operations, at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Wal-Mart has partnered with several lawmakers, government agencies and nonprofit groups for the initiative. The Congressional Hunger Center, the House and Senate hunger caucuses and the Department of Agriculture backed the effort.
But Wal-Mart has already done more to fight hunger than all these charitable organizations by bringing affordable food to all corners of the country. I’m not saying they can’t do good here as well, as charitable food banks serve an important function, but at the end of the day, economic growth and affordable goods provide the greater impact for long term hunger reduction, and that’s what Wal-Mart has always done.
Friday
April 2010
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets
Kenneth Green had a great Earth Day post yesterday pointing out that consumption can be a benefit to the environment:
We all want to live in a clean, healthy environment. But only people whose basic needs are met, who have adequate housing, food, clean water, education, healthcare, and economic opportunity can take the time to care about protecting their environment, and can afford to do so.
By engaging in trade with other countries, we help them grow wealthier, helping them to afford environmental protection, while we help ourselves by gaining access to goods and services that it might be impossible, or ruinously expensive, for us to manufacture ourselves.
So go have some coffee, and help Africa grow wealthy enough to protect the environment. Maybe buy some nice wooden furniture from Africa or Asia. Buy a nice sari from India, or a fine tea set from China.
One of the inherent contradictions within the environmental movement is its recent penchant for extolling self-sufficiency and buying local. These insular practices not only reduce efficiency overall (by denying the virtues of specialization), they also do nothing to help bring the rest of the world out of poverty. Anyone who has ever seen a picture of a poor African village, for instance, ought to realize why it is they are littered with debris and trash.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.