Government Regulation of Private Business

regulatory agency collageGovernment regulation of private business is never a good thing. Shocking statement isn’t it? But its true, so lets look at it.

1. First we must recognize that laws don’t stop crimes. If laws stopped crimes we would be a crime free country. Laws aren’t even designed to stop crimes. The criminal justice system is designed to define criminal activity and set up a mechanism to punish criminals. If laws stopped crimes, we would be a crime free country because we have way too many laws.

2. Next we must recognize that every “legitimate” regulation (one that is clearly geared at wrong behavior and not purely regulatory mechanism to raise revenue) is already covered by a criminal law already on the books. Once again proving point #1. If laws stopped crimes there would be no need to “double up” on bad behavior punishment with additional regulation.

US-Chamber-EPA-Regulations-Chart3. Since we know that laws don’t stop crimes, how can we possibly believe that adding additional regulations on top of laws will do any more? Never mind the fact that the government is real good at selective enforcement of regulations depending on who you are.

4. So if we know laws don’t stop crimes and the additon of regulation can’t either, what could possibly be the real purpose of regulations?

Answer: Reinforcing in the minds of the people that government knows best. Giving more power to the government over the people. And finally, the biggest reason for regulations, in my opinion, making sure that people do not actually OWN their businesses and that everything is owned by government.

When government regulates private industry people do not and cannot own their businesses. People merely possess their business as long as the government wants them too. All it takes is one regulation that you can’t or won’t comply with and !zap! no business.

Couting-Hundred-Dollar-BillsSome might claim that you can sue the regulatory agency if the regulation is really a bad one, but that is a false claim of reassurance. You have no business and no income because you can’t comply with the regulation, how are going to afford the law suit? Meanwhile the government will have deep pockets, filled by the regulatory fees you have paid and the taxes collected, to beat you into submission or bankruptcy; whichever comes first.

Let us not forget that you don’t get to sue the regulatory agency in a real court of law. You will first have to challenge them in an administrative law court where the judge is paid by the government to determine whether the government is following their rules. Constitution? Rights of the people? What are those in a court where the government owns and runs everything. Regulations create a monopoly of all industries because everything has a has a single owner, the government.

The problem is not lack of laws or absence of rules. The problem is selective enforcement of the laws we have and punishments that do not fit the crime.

I am for proper and equal enforcement of just laws within the required confines of due process. I am for complete deregulation of private industry and a return of businesses to their rightful owners, the people who built them. Why would I take such a “radical” position? Because it is 2015 Regulators Budget - Figure 1-Budgetary Costs of Federal Regulationthe only position that supports Liberty. And #LibertyMatters!

Now I want to ask a question. Why would this position be radical? Why may those who read this feel uncomfortable with this position? It is after all not my original thought. I got it from James Madison:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!” James Madison, Property, 1792