Ask someone with statist leanings why we need government regulation, and some variation of these four words are very likely to escape his mouth. Perhaps not right away, perhaps only after some probing and questioning and challenging, but it’s almost a given that this sentiment lurks beneath whatever noble sentiments are initially put forth. And, by “people,” he will be referring not to greedy capitalists, to corporate bigwigs, to snake oil salesmen, carnies or con artists, but to the average man on the street, the typical citizen. The belief is that the masses cannot be trusted to look after their own interests, so it is necessary that the enlightened and helpful hand of government intervene in their lives, to protect them from harm that they might do to themselves.
If protecting people from others’ misdeeds was the goal, there are already oodles of fraud laws on the books, there is an entire system of contract law, and there are countless tort lawyers looking for work. But so much of what government does is, in fact, about restricting people’s ability to act and interact as they wish, no matter if it’s by themselves, with their neighbor, with someone of their socioeconomic position, or with some mega-corporation.
Some will argue that many ask for this sort of intervention, that many consumers would rather have some watchdog agency telling them it’s OK to use this product or that service rather than take personal responsibility. Yet those desires have been and could easily be handled by the free market, even more so with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of ratings, reviews and comments on dedicated ratings sites, on retailers’ comments pages, on blogs, and so forth. And, even if government was involved, it could offer seals of approval or recommendations rather than binding regulation.
Some will argue that many don’t deserve to be trusted, given how they’ve done wrong to themselves in the past. This is the excuse given by the nannies, and they rationalize their involvement by speaking of societal costs. Yet what prioritizes societal costs over individuals’ choices? The choice by society to take care of those who’ve chosen poorly? That’s circular reasoning – “we’re going to control what you eat because we’ve decided to take care of you even if you eat poorly.” It’s not a defensible position in a society that has any respect whatsoever for liberty. Furthermore, “wrong” is often in the eye of the beholder. Sure, you’re more likely to live a longer and healthier life if you keep your BMI under 25, limit yourself to a drink or two every Saturday, slather yourself in sunscreen every day, get moderate exercise, and avoid rich and fatty foods. But, suppose you’d rather eat delicious food, drink a bottle of wine every night, work on your tan in the summer and don’t mind carrying 25 extra pounds as the price for your indulgence? What if the happiness you pursue is epicurean rather than salubrious? Why does an outside agency get to deny your pursuit? And, if your pursuit takes you to obesity, shouldn’t that be on you rather than be an excuse for government to regulate everyone else?
Some will argue that the world is simply too complicated, that people need experts to guide them, that they’re incapable of even realizing that they need those experts, and so the expertise must be forced upon them for their own good. To this point I offer two questions: 1 – what gives us confidence that the government experts will get it right? They’ve certainly gotten it wrong countless times. And, 2 – if people are that far in over their heads, how can they be permitted to vote?
The latter speaks the real truth about statists. They long for a degree of totalitarianism. They want someone in power whose power isn’t subject to the whims of the ignorant. They, of course, would rather be on the side of the powerful, which is why our American statists scream whenever the “other” party does statist things they don’t like. Yet all the statist and totalitarian economies of modern history have lagged the freer economies, a fact acknowledged in the movement of even nations like China away from centralized control and towards free markets.
Meanwhile, back in the American homeland, the condescension and contempt inherent in the words “people can’t be trusted” is the basis and justification for the ever-increasing intervention of politicians and bureaucrats in so many aspects of the economy and our lives. That makes them the basis for the systematic destruction of our our liberties and the nation’s economy.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters