BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

The Nanny State & A Regulated Society Archive

Tuesday

28

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Predictions Coming True: Government Control Over Health Care is Control Over Everything

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Since I don’t like to repeat myself if I don’t have to, here’s a point I made in April (and no doubt have made previously) in a post titled, “Government Health Care Leads to Tyranny“:

Forget all that compelling  wonkish stuff against government sponsored health care, like the third-party-payer problem, regulatory capture or public choice theory. The most compelling argument, and simplest to understand, is that it inevitably leads to tyranny. Once you decide that the health of an individual is of collective interest, and funded by collective dollars, you give that collective the authority to interfere in any individual act which impacts a person’s health, and it turns out that’s just about everything.

With that in mind, read this excerpt from a story titled, “Feds look to regulate food similar to tobacco, with hopes of saving money on health care“:

The federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The reason is money, because three-quarters of medical-spending is driven by chronic diseases, such as obesity and tobacco-related diseases, she said.

…In April, the FDA published a new set of rules requiring restaurants to show the calories in each menu item, and the Federal Trade Commission released a set of guidelines for food that is marketed to children. These steps were mandated by the 2009 Obamacare health-sector law.

…Sebelius deflected questions about whether food officials would mandate distressing pictures on food they consider unhealthy. Tobacco is unique, she said, because it is “the number one cause of preventable death.” But Sebelius did not rule out tobacco-style treatment for food. “It has a lot to do with underlying health costs and overall health of our nation … the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise, will continue to be I think an ongoing focus,” she said.

No mandates or heavy handed regulations yet, but this is how it starts. And mark my words, it won’t stop at food.

Wednesday

22

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me a Mandatory Personal Flotation Device

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The latest in big government nannyism comes from the west coast (Hat-tip: Reason):

People who hope to beat the summer heat by swimming, floating or boating on rivers in King County must wear a life vest or face an $86 fine.

A divided County Council on Monday passed a personal flotation device ordinance by a five to four vote. Opponents said it was an intrusive move by “big government.”

“This council sometimes thinks it’s everybody’s mom,” said Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, who voted “no.”

…Councilwoman Julia Patterson, a “yes” vote, said the same arguments Dunn made against the life vest ordinance were also made against laws requiring child safety seats in automobiles and banning smoking in public places.

“We are improving the health for everyone because of these laws that we pass,” she said.

Life is full of risk. There’s no such thing as a risk-free activity, and every choice involves a trade-off, which only the individual involved is properly positioned to evaluate, because benefits are subjective. Some people are willing to jump out of a plane for the thrill of it, risking that their equipment might malfunction and they die. Some people would never do that, and don’t find it fun at all anyway, regardless of the level of risk. Who is to decide that one of those cost-benefit analyses is correct, while the other is not? When it comes down to it, there’s no reason beyond busybody nannyism for why a third party (government) can assert that their chosen level of acceptable risk should override individual preferences.

So long as this kind of reasoning is permitted, that government exists to protect people from their own choices, these nannies will never stop. There will always be some new miniscule risk for them to foolishly try to eliminate. But while they will never win the battle of trying to turn us all into bubble boys, we will invariably lose our liberty.

Thursday

26

May 2011

0

COMMENTS

Legalize, But Why Regulate?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Free Markets, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

First, this is excellent news:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is planning to introduce legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker and said he hopes the measure can pass both chambers of Congress this session.

…The FBI shut down three of the largest online poker sites last month as part of the Obama administration’s enforcement of online gambling and piracy statutes.

U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized another 10 online betting sites Monday, including two popular poker sites.

…Barton called the current law unenforceable and argued that online poker itself isn’t illegal, so the government has targeted the deposits made by players instead. An estimated 10 million Americans played poker online until recently, including roughly 50,000 PPA members who depend on it for their livelihood.

This is undoubtedly good news, should legalization pass, compared to the current environment of rampant government thuggery and ill-conceived prohibition.

But why must we legalize and regulate? Why can’t we just legalize? The market has proven perfectly capable of self regulating itself up to this point, with the top sites having worked hard to earn reputations as reliable and honest brokers. Sure there have been some scandals, but they were also dealt with. The market will punish thieves and fraudsters and reward quality service, as it has done up until now even with the legal clouds hanging over the market.

There’s little evidence that heavy handed regulation is needed here. I just don’t understand why poker advocates have gone into negotiations already ceding the big government point. Every time I hear poker advocates talk about legalizing the game, they follow it up with talk of regulating and taxing. I understand you need to make points about revenue to convince certain politicians, but let’s not get carried away on this taxing stuff. I also understand if some concessions need to be made regarding the scope of regulations in order to get enough votes, but why start from the position of regulation? Granted, we don’t know the details of this particular legislation yet, so perhaps it won’t involve too much government. But experience gives me reason not to get my hopes up.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a big improvement in either case. Get it legalized now, and regulate it if the political dynamics require it, and then we can always deregulate later.

Sunday

8

May 2011

0

COMMENTS

California to Sleep Tight in Government Approved Sheets?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

There is no issue too small,  no detail too obscure, and no topic too far outside the scope of legitimate government to escape the scrutiny of the Californian nanny state. To wit (Hat-tip: Overlawyered):

…[N]ext Monday … a committee will ponder a labor union-backed bill mandating the use of fitted bottom sheets in all hotel rooms.

The way union leaders see it, such sheets – common in households across America but far less so in hotels – will help ease the backbreaking work that defines a housekeeper’s job. Hoteliers, who say the mandate could cost the industry $20 million statewide, call it a ridiculous, unnecessary piece of legislation that is sidetracking politicians from far more pressing work like balancing the state budget.

Besides tackling the issue of fitted sheets, the bill also calls for the use of long-handled mops so that housekeepers do not have to get down on their hands and knees to clean bathroom floors.

This will cost money:

San Diego hotel operators insist that if using fitted bottom sheets cut down on worker injuries, they’d be the first to embrace them. Trouble is, the expensive equipment the lodging industry uses to press and fold linens is not designed to accommodate unwieldy, elasticized sheets that are difficult to fold and iron.

The machines, which at a minimum cost $60,000, can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, say hotel operators.

These costs will be passed on to consumers, which will mean higher costs for already financially exasperated Californians, as well as out of state tourists, many of whom will be turned away by the higher costs, depressing the Californian economy. s it any wonder that Texas is cleaning their clock?

Saturday

30

April 2011

0

COMMENTS

Courts and FDA Interpret Mandate to Regulate Tobacco as Authority to Regulate Non-Tobacco E-Cigarettes

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

First the nanny’s attempted to gain control over e-cigarette’s by labeling them as a drug. They got shot down in court, and have now given up that approach. Instead, with the courts blessing, they’ve moved onto the more absurd angle that the tobacco-less products can be regulated as tobacco product:

The Food and Drug Administration said Monday it plans to regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products rather than continue trying to classify them as a combined drug and medical device. The agency said it will soon be issuing a proposed rule on e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes vaporize tobacco, along with a chemical compound that includes nicotine, without producing smoke. The government has said the chemicals in e-cigarettes are untested and potentially harmful.

The article above from The Hill is incorrect. E-cigarettes do not “vaporize tobacco,” but rather a nicotine bearing liquid solution.

In some ways this is actually a victory for freedom, as the FDA originally sought to regulate e-cigarette’s under its much more onerous regime on medical devices. It was the court that originally concluded that e-cigarettes are tobacco products (under the reasoning that nicotine is derived from tobacco), and thus subject to regulation under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This prevents the FDA from banning the product as an unapproved pharmaceutical, but still gives it significant authority to ban it through other means.

There is no argument that e-cigarettes can potentially harm anyone but the user, if they are shown even to do that. Thus, in a free society where individuals are able to choose what risk they wish to take, there should be zero impetus for government regulation. But this is a nanny state, where your choices are subject to pre-approval by busybodies who know what is best for you.

Sunday

17

April 2011

3

COMMENTS

Thugocrats Target Online Poker

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

You, being too stupid to manager your own affairs, have been prohibited from playing poker online. Technically, financial institutions have been prohibited from helping you get your money on- and off-line, which has the same affect. Naturally, as this law was both unjust and unconstitutional, poker and financial institutions found a way to keep you playing anyway, because that’s what tens of millions of Americans, myself included, wanted.

This angered the thugocrats who commanded you not to use your own money in ways they disapprove (or in competition with their own gambling rackets), and so they have charged the CEO’s of the biggest poker sites with fraud, and also a fake crime known as “money laundering.” Any time prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to convict on real crimes, they pull out “money laundering” charges in hopes to confuse jurors, because no one really knows what it is, including the prosecutors. To add insult to injury, the thugs also stole their domain names.

This is not a partisan issue. A Republican Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act as a hidden inclusion in the Safe Port Act, and Obama appointed thugocrat U.S. Attorney Preet  Bharara brought the charges (his office phone number is 212-637-2200, so call and tell him how much you appreciate his thuggery).

In case you have not figured it out, you are not free and this is not a nation of law. This is a Thugocracy.

Monday

11

April 2011

1

COMMENTS

Teaching Tyranny Early at Chicago School

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

It’s stories like this that reaffirm for me why breaking the government monopoly on education is so vital:

Little Village Academy, a public school on Chicago’s West Side, prohibits students from bringing homemade lunches unless the child has a medical excuse, according to the newspaper, which quotes school officials saying the rule is meant to encourage healthful eating, as students are forced to eat lunches served in the school cafeteria instead.

School Principal Elsa Carmona told the newspaper that she created the policy six years ago after observing students bringing “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” from home.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” she told the Tribune. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

In certain contexts I wouldn’t object to a school instituting such a policy. For instance, if parents were free to pick the school their children attended in a competitive market, some might want the school to take on such responsibility. But in such a market, the school would have to compensate by offering a stellar lunch. It’s the sort of innovation that can be tested in a competitive market, where it would either thrive or fail.

But this is not such a case. These kids are trapped in this school, which makes this not an innovative offering to parents, but an act of tyranny. According to the school district, the students at Little Academy are 99.9 % “low income,” which means they also have little hope of escaping the moral dictates of the local food czar, Elsa Carmona.

Wednesday

16

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

What a Deceptive Soccer Player Can Teach Us About Excessive Government Regulation

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

While the follow video demonstrates a rather blatant example of the behavior, this kind of gaming is not unusual in the sport:

The player in question grabs the hand of an opponent and forces it to hit him in the face. Why would any sane person do this?

The answer is simple: the game gives him incentive to do so. If he successfully tricks the central authority, his opponent is penalized. If he does not, he loses nothing in the context of the game. Thus why soccer is notorious for this kind of fake injuries. Rather than beat their opponents through skill, players have learned that it can be more cost effective to trick referrees into thinking they have been hurt by their opponents.

In an old post giving my thoughts on why soccer has not caught on in the US to the degree it has elsewhere in the world, I noted:

Obviously it’s necessary to have a punishment for certain behaviors. Punching another player in the face, for instance, shouldn’t be allowed. But what happens when such well-intended rules are applied too liberally? The result, to the disgust of many Americans, is the creation of a soccer victim class. These players fall at the drop of a hat and feign injury, all with the hopes of taking advantage of the central regulating authority.

In the real world this might be considered a form of rent-seeking. It is an example of the unintended consequences that can result from well meaning meddling by centralized authorities. The rules of soccer, by failing to provide any sort of punishment for trying to trick the referee (imagine what would happen in the real world if filing a false criminal report was not itself a punishable offense), have given players an incentive to spend less time playing the game, and more time playing the referees. I doubt it was the intention of the rule-makers that this be the result.

The lesson here is that incentives matter and that any interference, by manipulating incentives, can drastically change the environment in which we all live.  This does not mean that rules, or laws, should never be adopted. Rather, it suggests a need for caution when considering new forms of interference in free activities. When even the simplest of rules – don’t hit your opponent in the face – can create unintended consequences, it demands a naturally skeptical stance toward large, complex, or knee-jerk pieces of legislation, which encompasses a vast majority of the bills being produced in Washington DC these days.

Saturday

12

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

$10 + Government Meddling = $1,500

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

And not in the good way.

A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That’s because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved.

But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE’-Nah). The March of Dimes and many obstetricians supported that because it means quality will be more consistent and it will be easier to get.

None of them anticipated the dramatic price hike, though…

Of course they didn’t, because they don’t think about the consequences for their feel-good meddling.

Makena is a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone that first came on the market more than 50 years ago to treat other problems. Hormone drugs came under fire in the 1970s, following reports they might damage fetuses in early pregnancy. In the 1990s, the early incarnation of Makena was withdrawn from the market.

But the drug got a new life in 2003, with publication of a study that reported it helped prevent early births to women who had a history of spontaneous preterm deliveries.

…The study of women at risk for this condition found that only about 36 percent of those given the progesterone drug had preterm births, compared with 55 percent among those not on the drug.

…To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years.

I’d say that the fools got what they deserve for wanting their precious “FDA approved” in front of what was already a perfectly good and safe drug, but really it’s the rest of us that will bear the costs through increased insurance premiums and entitlement subsidies, or loss of access to a beneficial drug.

It just amazes me that the doctors in the article, who are presumably intelligent people, are shocked and surprised that adding an expensive approval process and a government granted monopoly would make something more expense.

How can we ever hope to create good public policy with so much economic illiteracy to contend with?

Tuesday

8

February 2011

1

COMMENTS

Government Orders Barber with 50 Years Experience Back to School

Written by , Posted in Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I’ve written about the problems with government licensing schemes, and the Institute for Justice brings us yet another egregious example of this particular tool of government infringement on basic rights:

An 80-year-old barber cutting hair for 50 years now is told he has to go back to school.

He says the state never warned him his license was about to expire.

Americans have a constitutional right to earn a living in the occupation of their choice, free from unreasonable government interference.

What happened to this man is the very definition of unreasonable.

A properly engaged judiciary, is one that takes rights seriously, including the right to earn a living.

And it says to government officials you have to treat people reasonably, you have to respect their constitutional right to earn a living. The Institute for Justice created the Center for Judicial Engagement to educate the public about the importance of an engaged judiciary that will protect our constitutional rights including the right to earn a living.

And when we succeed, what you saw in this case the State of Oregon putting a man out of business who’s been cutting hair for 50 years,

That will never happen again.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI 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.

Search Site

Categories

Archives