The Problem:
Regulations, at best, are a zero-sum game, creating win-lose scenarios and relationships; the "winners" being the public that are perceived to "benefit" from the regulations, and the losers being the businesses that are forced to expend valuable resources in order to comply.
Regulations, contrary to what current and past presidential administrations believe, are anti-free market. They hurt competition and make the business environment difficult for entrepreneurs and start-ups to get a foot-hold in the market, resulting in many of them closing their doors. In many instances larger companies are ready willing and able to absorb the losses imposed by regulations and actually collude with politicians to get them passed in Congress, knowing full-well smaller companies would find it difficult to survive, and thus, suppressing and preventing competition.
The Solution:
The answer to the problem of regulations is quite simple, but requires an understanding of history and philosophy.
First, a historical context of the Commerce Clause is needed. The government claims to get its authority to regulate from the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) in the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the right "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The word “regulate” is the keyword in the aforementioned clause. As many of us know, language changes and evolves over time, as do definitions of words. The power that the Framers intended to give to Congress was the power to keep trade and commerce REGULAR, that is, to tear down trade barriers and restrictions to trade, not to enforce them! Today, the word regulate has taken on a much different meaning with the exact opposite of its intention. Thus, regulations, as we know them today, are unconstitutional and illegal.
Second, the philosophy of self-interest must be understood. We as a society must embrace and acknowledge the idea of one acting in one’s own self-interest and selfishness as something good. Our society today has a warped view of what self-interest is all about. It gets wrongly cast aside as a philosophy of self-destruction and has gone from being a virtue to a vice. Self-interest is one acting not just for one’s short-term gain, but long-term gain as well. The only way to successfully achieve long-term gain when dealing with others is through the creation of win-win relationships. One might believe that businesses who act to purposely defraud their customers are acting in their own self-interest for a quick short-term gain, but actually they are working for their own long-term destruction, whether they realize it or not, because eventually word-of-mouth spreads and consumers will eventually stop shopping at their place of business. A business truly acting in their self-interest would have a long-term mindset and create relationships with their customers that are positive, thus assuring their business’ success in the future.
We do not need regulations but an enforcement of our Constitutional individual rights. Laws to protect those rights from infringement from rogue companies and individuals are what is truly needed, not regulations, to protect us in the marketplace. There is absolutely no reason why the government should be creating win-lose scenarios. All it creates is an untrusting society. A change in philosophy to the promotion and understanding of what self-interest really means is vital to changing course in this country to get us back on the road to prosperity. What we need is a separation of state and economics; a truly unrestricted laissez-faire capitalist system to stop collusion from coercively preventing competition in the marketplace and to allow businesses to do what they do best.
In your casting of this putative problem, we need to bear in mind that the public consists just of individuals. Regulations are aimed at protecting individuals, in light of their rights to safety, information, etc. in the market. Forgetting that, it was easy for you to claim that, since they have this cost for the freedom of corporations, and perhaps thusly inhibit some kind of flourishing, regulations ought to be abandoned. But you've said nothing about the actual (at least putative) positive value of regulations. Addressing that would seem to be the first task.
ReplyDeleteRegulations have costs. That is uncontroversial. The question is whether or not those costs outweigh the protections for individuals. And if you consider corporations individuals (which would need defending independently), you could just as well take me here to have said "other individuals".
While that addresses the general aim of this post, your fifth paragraph also strikes me as setting up a strawman. It's difficult for me to believe that those opposed to some kind of egoism (*especially* if we're talking about corporations) are just opposed because they make the silly mistake of taking "self-interest" to mean "immediate self-interest regardless of overall interest". In actuality, it's because of our intuition that there is value in others just as much as in ourselves, and that what we ought to do is far from settled by considerations about ourselves.
Putative!? There is nothing "purported" about the the problem of regulations. This is a real problem for real businesses large and small. There is also no need for me to mention the positive effects of regulations when, fundamentally, they are immoral on the basis of the government infringing on the individual rights of the business owners (and of the consumers too, in a more indirect way). As with anything, there is always going to be positive/negative effects. The basis of deciding how to move forward with a problem such as this lies in its morality. If an answer to a problem is immoral, then a new solution must be sought. Regulations are often seen as the answers to the problems faced in the marketplace, but they are in fact the problems due to their immoral nature.
ReplyDeleteYour contention was that these are problems. Responding to my calling them putative by saying that "There is nothing 'purported' about the problem" is just begging the question. The rest of your comment does not address mine. Also, I'm puzzled by your invoking morality in this way. I thought that above you endorsed egoism. As such, I would have thought that, for you, we would be ruling out considerations which are external to agents, but you seem to be calling upon just such considerations.
ReplyDeleteI endorse rational egoism. Big difference. And as stated in the post, regulations favor some individuals over others. What I am proposing is that we do not need regulations when all individuals (business owners and consumers) are protected by the Constitution. If a business defrauds someone or sells an unsafe product, there are remedies available through our legal system. I do not favor businesses over consumers or consumers over businesses. In this system, all are truly equal. No favoritism by bureaucrats or special interests. It's that simple.
ReplyDeleteIn responding to your "straw man" comment, I can tell you that it is not. I never said people are only opposed to egoism because they misinterpret it. I am saying that there are those strongly against it solely because they believe it to mean something that it is not. If people better understood Ayn Rand's philosophy, many more would be embracing it and come to understand that it is a fundamental aspect of a free society.