government intervention — VOICES for REASON

In the Christian Science Monitor, Don Watkins and Yaron Brook draw on Atlas Shrugged to illuminate a crucial difference between two opposite kinds of businessmen in our economy:

The producers, such as Hank Rearden [a character in Atlas Shrugged], inventor of a new metal stronger and cheaper than steel, work tirelessly to create products that improve human life. The looters are basically pseudobusinessmen, like the incompetent steel executive Orren Boyle, who get unearned riches by getting special favors from politicians. Their business isn’t business, but political pull.

The CSM titled the piece “Apple vs. GM: Ayn Rand knew the difference. Do you?” It’s a good oped that sheds light on how government intervention in the economy distorts the behavior of businessmen.

Read the whole thing.

stock.xchg/barunpatro

Last week I spoke at the 13th annual Energy & Environment Conference and Expo in Phoenix. This is one the largest events in the U.S. devoted to energy and environmental issues, with over 650 speakers and more than 2300 attendees.

Marketing slogan: “650 speakers tackle solutions for USA’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions.” Well, make that 649, because the gist of my presentation was to argue against the “solutions” that every other speaker had to offer.

As I told the audience attending my panel session, I was there to make the case for not doing anything about climate change—or, more specifically, for not imposing a massive regime of government controls, regulations, or market interventions aimed at restricting greenhouse gases in the name of allegedly fighting climate change.

Mine was definitely the most controversial talk on my panel session. I was even attacked as a “denier” by one of my co-panelists, the executive director of the American Solar Energy Society. But there were a number of people in the audience who came up afterwards to thank me for presenting a contrarian view that they felt was badly needed at this conference.

Read the rest of this entry »

He increased government spending to historic highs. He poured vast amounts of money into a half-baked scheme to “stimulate” the economy. He bailed out failed companies. He expanded government control over medicine. He denounced “corporate greed” and saddled businessmen with crippling regulations and controls.

No, I’m not talking about President Obama. Read the rest of this entry »

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t like the amount of salt that Americans consume—and therefore he wants to force us to consume less. The newly launched National Salt Reduction Initiative seeks to reduce Americans’ consumption of salt by 20 percent over the next five years. The program is described as “a coalition of cities, states and health organizations working to help food manufacturers and restaurants voluntarily reduce the amount of salt in their products.” This coalition will set reduced sodium targets in a broad array of foods, and businesses who sign on will pledge to meet those goals.

Seems harmless, right? After all, too much salt is supposedly unhealthy and, if you disagree with the goals of the program, well, it’s voluntary. Except that “voluntary” government programs are anything but. Just as the trans fat ban Mayor Bloomberg instituted in 2008 was preceded by a call for restaurants to “voluntarily” eliminate the lipid from their kitchens, so the National Salt Reduction Initiative is a warning shot for food producers and restaurant owners to reduce salt levels . . . or else.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article recently reporting on, of all things, the question of whether horse-teeth floating—the filing down of horses’ teeth to maintain their oral health—should be subject to government regulation. According to the Journal, the Texas board of veterinary medicine has been aggressively lobbying the state to take action against those who float teeth without a veterinary license, and has ordered two dozen such floaters to cease and desist. Four of these floaters have responded with a lawsuit, arguing the cease-and-desist orders violate their rights under the Texas constitution.

This case raises the issue of government licensing in general, which has been rapidly expanding over the past half-century. The Institute for Justice, which is backing the floaters in their lawsuit, reports that the number of American workers subject to such government oversight has increased from 3 to 35 percent in the past 50 years. Licensing laws are a critical point of entry for government intrusion into individual lives, with everyone from real estate agents to hairdressers (!) being forced to obtain government permission to make their living.

People often view licensing as a necessary safeguard against unqualified practitioners of a trade. But there’s an important distinction between government licensing and private certification. Private agencies exist in many fields, from interior design to bookkeeping, that offer certification assuring a level of professional competence. There is no reason why, on a free market, customers would have difficulty obtaining an independent assessment of a given practitioner’s qualifications and skill. Indeed, there are often multiple private certifying bodies competing with one another to offer the best guarantee of excellence. And companies such as Consumer Reports and Angie’s List offer advice on a huge variety of products and services.

But such agencies merely offer their expert opinion, they don’t have any power to force their judgment on anyone. Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I commented on how government central planning, being subject to shifting political agendas, makes long-range economic decision-making impossible. It’s worth looking at other examples of the chaos and market distortions that government intervention causes.

Consider the government’s support for alternative fuel vehicles, which—like the solar power plants in the Mojave desert—is driven purely by green ideology. It currently doesn’t make any technological or economic sense to try to replace the petroleum-powered internal combustion engine with currently existing alternative fuel technologies. (Just as it currently doesn’t make any sense to try to replace fossil-fueled or nuclear-powered electricity with solar or wind.) Nevertheless, the government is determined to do so.

In 2003, the Bush administration launched a 1.5 billion dollar initiative to subsidize the development of hydrogen cars—cars that use hydrogen instead of gasoline as their source of energy, producing water as their only emission.

Now, there are all kinds of reasons why hydrogen cars would never make it today on a free market. Critics cite legitimate safety concerns, the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell technologies, and the need for a huge, nationwide build-out of hydrogen refueling stations. Read the rest of this entry »

What follows are three examples of a common fallacy:

1. The FTC brings an antitrust suit against Intel on the grounds that, among other accusations, the company coerced its customers into buying only its CPUs and GPUs.
2. Congress passes legislation preventing broadcasters from forcing TV viewers to listen to “excessively loud” commercials.
3. The government passes laws to stop health insurance companies from forcing high-risk customers to pay higher insurance premiums.

Each of these is an actual example of the fallacy of equivocating between economic power and political power–of treating as identical the power of private individuals or businesses to engage in trade and the power of the government to use physical force. Understanding this fallacy is a crucial step in untangling these and many other issues. Read the rest of this entry »

In October, I posted on the opposition by environmentalists to solar energy projects in California’s Mojave Desert. I mentioned that California Senator Dianne Feinstein was planning to bolster that opposition with legislation.

Well, just before Christmas the New York Times reported that Feinstein introduced a bill “to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.”

What I found most striking in the article was this (emphasis added):

But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy.

Developers of the projects have already postponed several proposals or abandoned them entirely. The California agency charged with planning a renewable energy transmission grid has rerouted proposed power lines to avoid the monument.

“The very existence of the monument proposal has certainly chilled development within its boundaries,” said Karen Douglas, chairwoman of the California Energy Commission.

So even if the bill fails in Congress, the environmentalist anti-development agenda wins.

The irony is that these scuttled energy projects are creatures of green government intervention in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »

Suppose you heard of someone who, in spite of its bloody and impoverished history, advocated socialism. Suppose that person thought the key to moving America toward socialism was using government power to ensure the media pushed an anti-capitalist message. Suppose that, in order to achieve this goal, he wrote a book arguing that the Federal Communications Commission should curtail the private media with a crippling array of restrictions and taxes, and then pour tens of billions of dollars into the creation of a government-funded “public” media. Suppose he also advocated subjecting Americans to mandatory “media training” so they would know how to “properly” interpret the media.

What would you say of such a person? Well, if you were the Obama Administration, you would say, “This person deserves a job at the FCC.”

I’ve written before about Mark Lloyd, chosen by the Obama Administration to be the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer. But I was shocked to find that in Lloyd’s 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he lays out the very proposals I noted above. I will have more to say about the book in the future. If we want to understand the anti-freedom path the FCC is heading down, we need to start by paying attention to the openly declared goals of its officers. As an agency which exists precisely in order to control the media, it should be especially alarming when one of its representatives is committed to radically expanding that control.

Image: flickr

Now that a federal court has found the U.S. liable for post-Katrina flooding in New Orleans, the federal government will be pouring tax money down yet another drain hole in the name of disaster relief. The court found that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was grossly negligent in maintaining a vast network of levees and flood control structures that were supposed to protect New Orleans. The court-ordered damages must be paid from tax funds along with the costs of rebuilding. Said a Los Angeles Times article: “The federal government has promised tens of billions of dollars in post-storm rebuilding aid to Louisiana. The Justice Department has estimated that the total outstanding civil claims could amount to billions more.”

This is not a shocking development. Once Uncle Sam took on the job of flood protection for a city situated in a below-sea-level bowl, it was readily foreseeable that any negligence would increase the population’s exposure to the kind of disaster that Katrina brought. Yet despite the obvious hazards, government policy continues to be formulated as if New Orleans has an unquestionable right to continue defying nature at taxpayer expense.

Read the rest of this entry »