Regulation

The Tip of the Regulatory Iceberg

Pointless economic regulation cripples innovation and speeds the growth of big government.

|

In 2014, the government issued 2,400 new regulations, including 27 major rules that may cost $80 billion or more annually. They range from forcing restaurants to list the number of calories in food—even though past experiments have revealed that such measures fail to change consumers' behavior—to reducing consumer choices and increasing energy prices by imposing tighter energy efficiency mandates on the plugs that we use to charge cellphones, laptops, and even electric toothbrushes.

These figures can be found in a new paper by Heritage Foundation scholars Diane Katz and James L. Gattuso, in which they tally the number and cost of government regulations over the past six years of President Barack Obama's administration—and show that Washington's control over the economy and Americans' lives is intensifying. According to their count, during the first six years of the Obama administration, the number of new major rules reached 184, but another 126 are in the pipeline. That's more than twice the number imposed by President George W. Bush, who wasn't shy about regulating the economy.

Katz and Gattuso explain, "The cost of just these 184 rules is estimated by regulators to be nearly $80 billion annually." But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Official regulatory costs are vastly underestimated, among other things, because of the large number of rules for which costs have not been fully quantified.

More importantly, it doesn't appropriately account for the businesses, innovations, and economic growth that will never exist because of the incessant accumulation of regulations. Take the bureaucrats at the Federal Aviation Administration, who have effectively banned the use of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones. This and the myriad other questionable drone regulations proposed by the FAA have been widely criticized as arbitrary and nontransparent. Another example was the FAA's proposal to require drone pilots to obtain the same license as old-school airplane pilots. Thank goodness it appears that the FAA is walking away from this bad idea. But the bottom line is that the FAA has demonstrated its penchant for imposing destructive constraints on this new technology.

Meanwhile, a more hands-off approach to regulating drones in other countries has led to new, exciting commercial uses for drones all over the world. For instance, a startup called Matternet uses drones to deliver critical supplies in places where roads can keep people isolated for months at a time. The potential is huge, considering that over 1 billion people live in such places. Germany's DHL already uses drones to deliver medicine to the small city of Juist on a small island in the North Sea. And a few weeks ago, we saw how the charity GlobalMedic was using drones to help aid relief operations in Nepal after the country was ravaged by earthquakes.

Yet the FAA continues its destructive approach with new proposed rules to further constrain drones that are less than 55 pounds. The rules would, among other things, prohibit them from conducting deliveries and prohibit operation outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset.

In other words, forget about sending medication or food to people in areas where ground travel is not possible, and forget about the 30-minute delivery service Amazon Prime Air—in the United States, that is.

But that's a drop in the bucket compared with dozens of other costly rules, including 13 regulations of the financial system that saw the light of day in 2014. According to Katz and Gattuso, eight of those were the product of Dodd-Frank, an act that was supposed to reduce the risk of a major bank failure but is actually a regulatory burden that cripples small banks while further protecting even larger institutions. In other words, Katz and Gattuso conclude, the need for reform of the regulatory system has never been greater.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: Marco Rubio's Foreign Policy: Reckless, Reactionary Big-Gov Love

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The purpose of regulation is to make it difficult for greedy businesses to make money from ripping off their customers and employees. This is how the government makes the economy grow.

    1. The point of regulation is to appease the special interests while simultaneously growing the bureaucratic state.

      1. The point of government is to make the governors happy and comfortable. The radicals who wrote the Constitution hoped to make a change, but like a river temporarily diverted from the valley floor, the government has been slowly working its way back to first principles.

        The problem isn’t that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. While it does happen, it actually doesn’t happen all that often. The problem is that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to smother you without noticing when it rolls over in its sleep.

        1. We really shouldn’t call it “government,” since they don’t do that much governing, not in any useful sense. Perhaps thieverment? Stealinment?

          1. Appropriationment.

      2. I wasn’t aware regulation even had a coherent purpose? It seems like it’s just something to do.

    2. Don’t forget erecting barriers to entry. Competition is nasstyyy. It burnnsses us, it doesss.

      1. Hey Beavis. He said “erect.” Hehehehehehehe….

  2. Veronique de Rugy on Pointless Regulation Crippling Economic Innovation

    Qualifying government regulations as “pointless” carries the same significance as saying “whorish prostitute” or “wet water”.

    ALL regulations are pointless precisely because they are born from the assumption that one can direct an acting human. You can direct a particle, because particles don’t have minds.

    1. They’re only pointless if you take their stated intentions at face value. The “point” of regulations is to protect cronies and give the government an excuse to hire more people to enforce them. And they’ve been pretty damn successful at that.

      1. Nobody who has analyzed the government in light of the Peter Principle and Parkinson’s Laws has ever been surprised by government greed, mendacity, overreach, or imbecility.

      2. Re: Dark Lord of the Cis,

        The “point” of regulations is to protect cronies and give the government an excuse to hire more people to enforce them.

        Of course the promotion of these rules by cronies is born from their self-interests. They’re means to an end from the standpoint of the lobbyists and the politicians who push for their legislation. That does not mean the regulation will perform exactly as expected precisely because it is born from a self-defeating point: that one can direct a self-interested and acting human.

  3. in a new paper by Heritage Foundation scholars Diane Katz and James L. Gattuso, […] show that Washington’s control over the economy and Americans’ lives is intensifying.

    It’s not like they have ever relented. Only in the wet dreams of little Marxians has the government ever deregulated an industry that matters, like manufacturing or finance. In fact, the greatest de-regulator of the last 50 years was president Carter, and then only in a few service industries. Considering the fact that the fastest-growing manufacturing industry of the last 40 years was also the least regulated ?computers and software? tells you the whole story.

    1. Are you kidding? Communications deregul’n has been huge. Same with xport’n. Also dietary supplements. Can you imagine where they’d be in the USA with the restrictions of 50 yrs. ago?

  4. So the thesis here is some regulations are bad, therefore all regulations are bad. I love a good dose of deep thought in the morning.

    1. My thesis: Tony can’t read.

      1. He can read, I’m sure. He just chooses not to, lest it make up the “gotcha, libertarians!” schtick he uses every time he posts.

      2. You can lead a Tony to knowledge, but you can’t make it learn.

      3. My lemma to DLC’s thesis is that: When somebody says too many regs, Progs hear no regs, no gov, absolute chaos.

        Fucking moron, Tony.

    2. Re: Tony,

      So the thesis here is some regulations are bad, therefore all regulations are bad

      No. ALL regulation is bad, therefore those regulations are bad, ipso facto.

      I love a good dose of deep thought in the morning.

      Mainly because a big dosage makes barely a dent on your sclerotic mind.

      1. What about regulating people’s ability to murder? Oh yeah, that is handily dealt with by ostracism. You’re the deepest thinker here. Only a real genius can find that truth is so simple.

        1. Re: Tony,

          What about regulating people’s ability to murder?

          How would you regulate people’s ability to murder? Do you understand the meaning of the word and what it entails?

          What you want is to stop someone from murdering you. For that, you put up fences, get a dog, learn personal combat, get a gun, etc. As far as I can tell, the only way to regulate someone’s abilities is by performing a frontal-lobe lobotomy on their heads.

          Oh yeah, that is handily dealt with by ostracism.

          Or a gun. Or fences. Or a dog. Doors. A baseball bat. Etc.

          By the way, do you require someone to regulate your ability to murder? If that’s the case, if you simply can’t stop yourself, then I pity your neighbors.

        2. What about regulating people’s ability to murder?

          That’s not regulation, dumbass.

          1. Re: Sarcasmic,

            Of course it isn’t. Tony is a master conflator, that’s all. He confuses Mala in se laws (or common laws) with Mala prohibitum rules or made-up “crimes” such as insider trading or not placing a railing at exactly 42 inches from the ground. You know, the sick shit bureaucrats create in their sick minds.

            1. There is a true element of stupidity in that he is incapable of learning. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others, the smart man learns from his own mistakes, and the stupid man just doesn’t learn. Tony doesn’t learn. He’s stupid. Unfixably stupid.

              1. I thought, per Tony, all rules were made up by the powers that be? ‘Mala in se’ isn’t even a thing. If the Powers That Be decree something is prohibitum, then it thereby becomes mala.

    3. Tony what regulations do you support and why? Please detail the benefit to society

      1. Ah, but Tony doesn’t DO arguments from facts and reason. He does arguments by specious superiority.

      2. That would all depend on who wrote the regulation, and who it was regulating. Regulation written by Democrats is good, and regulation written by Republicans is bad. Regulations that harm people he doesn’t like is good, and regulation that harms people he likes is bad. No principles, no right or wrong, just principals.

      3. Regulating traffic means my daily commute is largely free of me dying in chaotic pileups at every intersection. Regulating food safety means I get to eat stuff prepared by strangers and almost never get poisoned. Regulating air traffic means planes don’t collide with one another on a constant basis. Regulating finance means the global economy does not collapse (oops!). Regulating pollution, if we did that to a meaningful degree, means preventing the various harms that causes. Etc.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Regulating traffic means my daily commute is largely free of me dying in chaotic pileups at every intersection.

          I guess you have little regard for the other drivers’ interest in reaching their destination without crashing. You think there are puppet masters at work?

          Regulating food safety means I get to eat stuff prepared by strangers and almost never get poisoned.

          Do you think that the only thing stopping strangers from poisoning you is regulations?

          Maybe the issue here is not your trust of regulations but this idea that people are savages looking to kill you at the first opportunity. Maybe you think yourself mor important that way but, trust me: you’re not. You’re not king Louis XIV.

          1. Re: Tony,

            Regulating finance means the global economy does not collapse (oops!).

            But the economy has collapsed. Many times. The more regulations were put in place, the bigger the collapses.

          2. Tony has said that the only reason why parents look after their children is because the government tells them to. Seriously. He honestly believes that parents would let their children die if not for government. It’s difficult to comprehend stupidity of that magnitude.

            1. Re: sarcasmic,

              It’s difficult to comprehend stupidity of that magnitude.

              It’s not simple stupidity. Tony is merely a troll attempting to rile you up by insulting your intelligence. We know this from way back. You and I simply like to respond to his inanity because it’s enjoyable.

            2. “He honestly believes that parents would let their children die if not for government.”

              As a young “man” Tony was abandoned by his father.

              He believes all fathers are the same.

              1. I would have abandoned him too, rather than be associated with an imbecilic lump of cells like him.

        2. “Regulating food safety means I get to eat stuff prepared by strangers and almost never get poisoned”

          Tony you are much more likely to be poisoned by someone who knows you well that by a complete stranger.

          Too bad for you the government didn’t regulate fathers abandoning their sons, huh Tony ?

        3. Regulating food safety means I get to eat stuff prepared by strangers and almost never get poisoned.

          Society would be better off if someone poisoned you, so that regulation is most definitely harmful.

          1. Internet harassment! Internet harassment! Call the regulatory agencies, put this menace to society in prison! For the love of God, feelings have been hurt!

        4. Tony by your comment on financial regulation since it failed…are you suggesting regulation is a bad thing there? As it didnt seem to meet your goals

        5. Tony please describe what you mean by regulating pollution. All pollutionn? How are you defining harms here? What sort of proposals do you have in mind?

        6. Tony you talk about a daily commute such as you must use card. The other day you stated we shouldnt be using fossil fuels.

          Curious is your car electric such that electricity comes from a wind turbine nuclear or hydro? Why arent you walking?

          You may be destroying the beautiful earth if not. This is concerning to mr

          1. Use cars*

    4. Tony, that isn’t what they said. Now either you know that isn’t what they said, and are pretending otherwise because you are a mendacious little prick, or you are dumb as a stump.

      They said that the Government continually passes regulations that have already been demonstrated to be useless or outright counterproductive. Can you honestly deny it?

      1. Honesty would require libertarians to balance their criticism of certain regulations with praise for regulations that positively contribute to well-being. But you don’t have a comprehensive worldview, you have narrow grievances and an incessant need to whine about them.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Honesty would require libertarians to balance their criticism of certain regulations with praise for regulations that positively contribute to well-being.

          Regulations don’t promote well-being. Individual actions do. If you were honest, you would accept that people’s interest in increasing their own well-being is what motivates a general increase in well-being, not regulations.

          It is not like I refrain from killing people because of regulations. I refrain from killing people because I know it is wrong to kill them if I accept that I don’t want to be murdered.

          1. Yet people murder.

            1. “Yet people murder”

              Progs should have passed a law against that when they had both houses of Congress.

              Problem solved.

            2. Re: Tony,

              Yet people murder.

              And the point is?

              By the way, the point would not be that regulating people has stopped people from murdering other people, if you concede that people do murder.

              1. The point is: if only we had regulations for that.

        2. you have narrow grievances and an incessant need to whine about them

          Projection: it’s not just for movie theaters anymore.

        3. What regulations positively contribute to well being and how? It takes one to follow them…someone could poison your food, no?

  5. Tony progressives like to talk about having jobs and innovation etc equals progress. So why do you support more regulation, high min wage and higher taxes? Seems to be the way to go about the exact opposite of your stated goal. Please detail your rationale

    1. Progressives believe that things get better by using the right words and backing those words up with force. Progress occurs because of beliefs, because of faith in government, and anybody who disagrees with those beliefs needs to be silenced. According to progressives this is called “science”, and it is infinitely better than “religion”, which is a nonsensical faith in an improbable belief system that if you just believe the right things and say the right things, the world will be a better place. Unfortunately science can’t triumph over religion because religious people try to silence anybody who disagrees with them. That’s why the world is a bad place.

      1. Ironic thing is progressivism is a religion…the govt is their god and the priests are politicians

      2. I’m sending this to my prog friends.

    2. Re: Franjasper1,

      The contradictions that permeate little Marxians’ talking points (like Tony’s for instance) are priceless fountains of hilarity, precisely because they seem to be born from a lack of awareness or intelligence. For instance:

      ? Little Marxians bemoan the fact that poor people can’t get material things;
      ? Little Marxians advocate for raising the minimum wage and Union membership as a way for poor people to obtain more material things; and
      ? Little Marxians bemoan the fact that we’re too materialistic and thus hurt the planet! So,

      Little Marxians want poor people to have more money, and they also want them take a vow of poverty to save Gaia.

      ? Little Marxians want to create a better world for all humans (supposedly) with equality for all;
      ? Little Marxians bemoan the fact that there is “overpopulation”, and
      ? Little Marxians are in favor of abortion with no restrictions, so

      Little Marxians want a better world, they just don’t want people to be born into it.

    3. Higher minimum wages and taxes than we have now would undoubtedly contribute to increased downward wealth transfer, which is always necessary to counter the natural tendency of markets to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. More wealth in more people’s hands means more well-being. It’s as simple as that.

      1. You are indeed as simple as that.

        Your pony is out back – quick, run and get it!

      2. Re: Tony,

        More wealth in more people’s hands means more well-being.

        Absolutely! Except, you don’t want people to have more wealth by creating it. Unless I have been mislead by your insistence that we’re “polluting” the Earth. You can’t have one thing and the other ?both things contradict each other.

        1. Tony doesn’t understand the difference between money and wealth. So he cannot comprehend the idea of creating wealth. To him money and wealth are the same thing. That means that wealth is magically created when the government prints money. He is so stupid he doesn’t even know he’s stupid.

      3. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a few is generally represented by means of production. It’s not money to be spent. It’s ownership in companies with factories and such. Spreading around that ownership doesn’t feed children. You can’t feed a child with a stake in a factory. Wealth is not money. Your stupidity is truly boundless.

        1. I’m not talking about factories and you goddamn well know it you goldfish-brained simpleton.

          1. Wealth is not money, stupid. You can’t turn wealth into money without selling it to someone, stupid. Then someone still owns the wealth, stupid. Because wealth is not money, stupid. All you can do is destroy the wealth out of spite, stupid, which serves no purpose other than satisfying your childish sense of fairness, stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid.

          2. You have complained many times about the wealth of the Walton family as an example of how evil inequality is. Well their wealth isn’t cash. It’s stores, warehouses, delivery trucks, merchandise, and such. Taking their wealth away from them will not feed children, because it’s not money to be exchanged for food. So that is exactly what you’re talking about, you stupid fuck. You’re so stupid you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Fucking shit. You’re the poster child for You Can’t Fix Stupid. Stupid. Shit.

            1. I applaud your restraint.

            2. And yet he trusts politicians not to take wealth and transfer it to their cronies

              1. And yet he trusts politicians not to take wealth and transfer it to their cronies

                That’s only because the government isn’t powerful enough to control the corporations that control it. If government had more power over the corporations that control it, then it could control them instead of the other way around. The problem is never too much government, because government is us, the people. The problem is those pesky corporations that force people to work for them and to buy their products. They’re the evil ones. Government fulfills The Will of the People, bestowed unto it by holy Representation. It can do no wrong.

          3. You may be the dumbest piece of shit on the face of the planet. Seriously, how do even have enough brain power to continue living? Motherfucking dipshit moron.

            1. Tony was the character basis for Wheatley, in Portal 2.

          4. Tony what would you set the min wage at and how did you arrive at that number? Would you be ok with 100 an hour? If no..why?

            A vague notion of a living wage wont suffice

      4. Your economic critique is flawed in so many ways. Regulation and interventionist policies lower the efficiency of the division of labor, and inevitably contribute to an overall lowering of wealth for all. By skewing the ability of the market to find a true price for services and wages, booms, busts, bubbles, and backwardation occur. Free markets are not naturally monopolistic and monopoly prices are a different thing than monopolies. Free markets are self-regulating based on the preference of the consumer (economic democracy at work). Government intervention is what causes monopolies to fix monopoly prices by allowing anti-capitalist behaviors. Monopolies can exist and are not necessarily bad (patents). If I owned the only place on earth where XYZ is found, am I a monster for exploiting this to my advantage? Is it my responsibility to have XYZ expropriated from me for the greater good? Is it your right to steal what is mine for your own good? You are a believer in theft, violence, and fraud, but for good reasons so I guess it is ok.

        1. Tony reading this: “Your economic critique wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah…*loud buzzing drone*…”

          Tony’s inner monologue: “This series of words is confusing and makes my head fuzzy. Rather than trying to comprehend it, I’ll ignore it and respond to a straw man. That makes me feel good so it must be right! I win!”

      5. How does higher min wage and taxes increase wealth transfer downward helping their well being…considering taxes continue to be raised, regulations imposed, min wage has increased throughout the years and yet here you are still complaining about wealth and rising income inequality. Perhaps you should explore your proposals as counter productive to your stated goals….ie the empirical results arent matching your hypothesis. Being a scientist such as yourself, i’d figure that when scientists discover the results dont match the hypothesis…then they abandon that hypothesis

        1. How does higher min wage and taxes increase wealth transfer downward helping their well being…

          Because it takes evil profits away from the greedy rich and gives them to the poor where they belong. After all, it’s the poor who do the labor. They deserve the profits. Duh.

          1. But does it?! It is odd because he continues to complain about the rich and corps getting richer which suggests the poor is clearly not benefitting from higher taxes and min wage rising

            1. Of course it doesn’t. But that’s the intention, and intentions are all that matter. Results? Fuck results. If results don’t match intentions, then it’s got to be because the intentions weren’t backed up with enough force. Or because the corporations control the government, and the government needs more power so it can control the corporations that control it. Or something. But the policies are never to blame if they were conceived of good intentions. That’s how the road to hell is paved.

              1. What you describe sounds more like a religioud zealot and not anything like a man of science imho

                1. Tony, if the corporations control the government as you imply….thus the government needs more power. Logically wouldnt this mean the corporations are getting more power?

                  1. Logically wouldnt this mean the corporations are getting more power?

                    Logically, yes. But Tony is immune to logic. He knows what he feels, and no amount of logic or reason can change it.

                2. What you describe sounds more like a religioud zealot and not anything like a man of science imho

                  Statism is a religion, and government is its god.

      6. “the natural tendency of markets”
        But you didn’t actually read the book Piketty wrote, because if you did, even someone as simple as you would see the obvious flaws in that. Markets don’t inherently push wealth upward; regulations do. Regulations disproportionately snuff out small/medium sized businesses, inhibit competition, thereby guaranteeing that a few big companies get to control the market free of competition, and with a cooperative government helping them to ‘plan’ the industry’s output. All this handwringing over ‘wealth inequality’ is progs finding stupid ways to ‘solve’ a problem they more tan anyone created.

        Why, though, am I still trying to reason with a baboon?

  6. I’ve been looking for a resource that examines all federal regulations and their effect on business… Any suggestions?

    1. Give up

  7. I get that everyone in this thread is bitching about pointless regulations, I do it too. My question is, short of a bloody and unpopular revolution, how do you reverse this? Funnel toxic gas into government buildings? Burn down the FDA, EPA, HUD, etc. buildings? Continue to bitch ineffectively in comment posts? It’s one thing to point out how fucked up the government is, it’s ridiculously easy to come up with examples. How do you fix it? Seems like the only potential solution is consume enough drugs to forget how fucked up it is. I’d like a more sober suggestion or two. I mean, I know we can’t change the whole morass overnight, but shouldn’t we create a list of the top 25 and raise hell until they’re deleted, then repeat? or something? Our country is getting more and more fucked up, and I’d really like to reverse the trend. Anyone else feel that way?

    1. Vote only for candidates that express and act on a belief that government should be made as minimal as possible.

    2. There is nothing that can be done. Government is a one-way ratchet. It is a parasite on society that eventually bleeds the host dry. Only then does the parasite die. Then society recovers, only to be attacked by a new parasite. That’s the cycle of history.

      1. This

      2. You guys are a real buzz kill. But I get it. I was hoping for a silver bullet I know doesn’t exist. I keep voting for less and getting more, so that’s a feel good measure at best. My only option seems to be head in the sand and pretend everything’s fine. But I’m not a head in the sand kind of guy. I guess I’ll keep bitching and moaning like everyone else. I sure would like to get Rand in the White House. Then maybe the average Joe out there could see what it’s like to think with a broader view of the Constitution. That’s who I’ll be voting for, and trying my best to convince others to do the same.

        1. I have found that I can accurately judge the outcome of an election by the inverse of my ballot. If I vote against a bond, then it is guaranteed to pass. If I vote for a ballot measure, then it is guaranteed to fail. If I vote against a particular politician, then he/she is guaranteed to win. That’s what’s called “representation.”

        2. Maybe you’ve forgotten that there used to be a military draft. Or what air fares & choices were like 40 yrs. ago. Or when there was only The Phone Company. Or wireless communication in general (b’cast & otherwise) back then. Or when dietary supplements were limited to the vitamins the medical establishment recognized. When you had no choice of electricity provider. When cannabis possession was a felony. When trucking was cartelized.

          And in other countries, where the gov’t ran the (only) airline, the only phone service, the electric utility, the TV, the radio.

          1. yes now we have many airlines and government workers laugh at photos or your genitals as a precondition to get on your flight. we have many phone companies to choose from and all your calls are recorded by the NSA and DEA.

            Things are soooo much better now!

      3. No, that’s definitely not true. The ratchet goes both ways. Sometimes the catch seems to be set in one direction, but other times, as in the 1970s & early ’80s, the other.

    3. Re: Jima,

      how do you reverse this?

      The moment the government runs out of money to pay the regulators and not before. That will take some time, but it will happen. It is not like regulators work for the government for the fun of it.

      This is regardless of who is in the president’s seat or Congress. Bureaucracies are not accountable to anyone.

      1. Seems like the consensus is – give up? Is that it? Did you guys give up? Why even complain? I guess I should just go fishing. After I renew my fishing license, of course. The prison bureaucracy isn’t my thing either.

        1. Give up? Never give up. That’s how they win, when we stop fighting.

          There is some good news amongst all of the bad–a guy like Paul is in the Senate, making noise that many people are listening to. Even if they oppose him with every ounce of their statist souls, they’re listening and having to deal with what he says and does. His popularity will doubtlessly lead to more people like him entering government, too.

          We may lose big, but the fight will never end.

        2. Re: Jima,

          Seems like the consensus is – give up? Is that it?

          You can either stop obeying government or overwhelm it in paperwork (? la Alinsky) but thinking that you can achieve change from inside is an exercise in wishful thinking. You can’t. Bureaucracies exist to perpetuate themselves. The only sure-fire way to starve the beast is by waiting for its food source to run out.

          1. The problem with starving the beast is that the beast is only starved when the host, society, is starved as well.

    4. I believe Charles Murray has a new book out on this very subject.

      1. Another Tome of Hopelessness. I’m not hopeless, just realistic. The Constitution is a great document that is widely ignored. If I am forced to choose sides, it will be homicide, not suicide. Homiside?? Bad joke, but you get my point. I guess the winning strategy is to enjoy the life you have, not spend all day bitching about how it could be better. Keep trying to make it better, but keep enjoying what you have. That’s my strategy. I should start a drinking league, it’d be like a bowling league, only with bourbon instead. That sounds like a good time.

        1. Keep holding the torch of liberty high. Do not let its enemies extinguish it no matter how well intended their tyranny. Educate yourself, educate those whom you influence, and vote with your dollar and at the ballot box. Civil disobedience, political donation, charity, educate your kids in classical liberal philosophy. The ways you can contribute are manifold and real. Hope is necessary but is not a course of action. These posts help spread ideas and keep a debate, that is otherwise languishing, moving. Even Tony is welcome here. At lease he offers a counter point to which we can all oppose. Liberty means tolerating those of all stripes. Liberty or tyranny, choose a side, it is that simple.

    5. Take the lessons from previous rounds of deregul’n in the USA & elsewhere.

      In the USA, the major deregul’ns of the 1970s (which included ending the draft, if you want to consider that regul’n) was a process that had been years in prepar’n, starting with commissions that were inaugurated by the Nixon admin. It was like, our masters appointed these experts, the experts said the best way to regulate these things was in fact to deregulate them, so Congress went along.

      Too bad one off the big ones that one of the commissions recommended, getting marijuana out of schedule 1 of the CSA, never happened. But a lot of other very significant reforms were adopted whose benefits we continue to see. One of them was a little different in that it also involved breaking up AT&T & included the Carterfone & MCI court decisions.

      Overall, the bipartisan commission way to proceed looks promising. I understand that was the way forward in other countries too.

  8. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  9. For Progs this kinda stuff is a feature not a bug. Shriek, Tony, AmSuck, Bo, etc…they love arbitrary power enforced by hyper-regulation. With so many regs not only to the control freaks who think that if only they had enough knobs to turn everything would be perfect, but it also means you can incarcerate anybody cause its not an excuse to be ignorant of para 2.3.4.455.666.a.3.gg.4 in subsection CC of the code for whatever, just press charges based on nothing…

  10. You know, I used to think that some regulations were good and necessary. These past few years, I’ve described myself as a minarchist. My belief has been that anarchy may be better in some areas, but it’s much worse in others. I often used the analogy that the government is like fire: it’s good to have some of it, as long as you keep it small and under control.

    However, the combination of recent regulatory and bureaucratic bullshit has really chipped away at my faith in minimal government. It’s apparent that no matter what, governments will always attempt to grab more power. Sure, you can write a constitution, but constitutional amendments are not laws of physics. Governments will just break them, either by “interpreting” the text to allow whatever they want, or by just keeping their wrongdoing a secret (see: NSA).

    I’m starting to think that the government is more like dandelions. You can’t keep just a few of them over in one little patch and expect them to stay there. If you don’t rip out every single one by the roots as soon as you see it, they’ll soon take over your entire yard.

  11. Tony some fun facts fer ya.

    Did you know one can have a very high income and zero or negative wealth?

    Did you know one can be very wealthy and have no income?

  12. Tony since you are concerned with wealth being transferred downward….i make min wage and i assume you have more than me. Would you give me some money to help me out? Ill set up a paypal

    1. It isnt a living wage so therefore i will die soon…please help

  13. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  14. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  15. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    http://www.wixjob.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.