regulation — VOICES for REASON

The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) invite you to celebrate industrial civilization and defend the energy that makes it possible during “Human Achievement Hour” this Saturday at 8:30 p.m. EST.

The event coincides with “Earth Hour,” which encourages people worldwide to turn off their lights as a protest against carbon emissions. During “Human Achievement Hour,” we encourage you to leave your lights on and fully enjoy the benefits of industrial civilization made possible by burning fossil fuels. Beginning at 8 p.m. EST, CEI is hosting a celebration at its offices in Washington D.C. and via livestream.

Back in 2009, ARC fellow Keith Lockitch explained the importance of standing against the “Earth Hour” campaign:

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.

People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems like only yesterday when cries of “Repeal Obamacare!” were sending thrills (or chills, depending on your point of view) up the spines of American voters. But now, according to this article from NPR, that chant has morphed into “repeal and replace”—and who do we find in the vanguard but American businesses.

Here are a few paragraphs from the NPR article, with my comments interspersed:

“No one has said what this bill would be replaced with,” said Richard Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association. “But doing away with this would certainly be the wrong thing. … People have been gearing up for some time, well before this actual bill got passed, to make these changes locally, and have invested a lot.”

It’s not just hospitals. Employers, particularly large employers, have already put considerable time, effort and money into implementing the parts of the law that have already taken effect. And just the possibility that the law will be repealed or substantially changed could present a serious problem.

“It takes a long lead time to execute any policy, so at this point having a lot of uncertainty and policy volatility really works against helping us to move toward solving the problems of the country,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents many of the Fortune 100 corporations.

There are many things worth noting here, but what I find especially fascinating is the utter absence of any concern with freedom. There is simply no concept that repealing Obamacare might (partially) liberate hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, patients, and businesses to deal with health care issues according to their own best judgment. Rather, the sole concern is with minimizing the costs of “executing policy.” Whose policy? The government’s.

Of course, I make allowances for the fact that this article focuses on lobbyists, not business owners or managers whose private opinions might differ (and whose opinions one would not necessarily expect the left-leaning NPR to publicize). I also concede that businesses have a legitimate interest in minimizing the expense of keeping up with volatile government programs. Yet we must keep in mind that the passage of Obamacare was not some minor re-jiggling of regulations hashed out behind closed doors—it was a milestone event that excited widespread national debate over the limits of government power. That’s a context in which even companies that are normally afraid to peek out of their foxholes might think about taking a stand in their own defense. Yet the NPR article continues:

Plus, says Darling, with the number of uninsured Americans at 50 million and growing, “starting over would make it virtually impossible to make real progress anytime soon.”

Here, it’s taken for granted that complex government policies will control everyone’s action in the realm of health care. What Ms. Darling counts as “progress” therefore consists of settling on one set of policies, so that her Fortune 100 clients can accommodate themselves to the government’s will. It’s not clear how typical are the opinions reflected in this article, but I haven’t heard about significant groups expressing opposite views.

That’s not to say that the health care industry loves the law. No segment of the industry got everything it wanted, and everyone is busy lobbying for something to be changed.

“There are plenty of opportunities for improvement, fine-tuning and actually adding some significant enhancements, especially in controlling costs,” Darling says.

Observe that doctors, hospitals, health insurers, and businesses that pay for health care all seem to accept the status of pressure groups, pleading for favors. Who’s the dispenser of those favors? The government.

The health insurance industry, in fact, wants to make more than just fine-tuning changes. It’s been among the most outspoken critics of the measure. But even insurers haven’t come out in favor of scrapping the whole law and starting over—particularly not when it stands to get millions of new customers.

Millions of new customers? Oh, yes—that’s what the industry expects from Obamacare’s mandate that every individual buy health insurance. And when you think about it, that’s entirely consistent with the health care industry’s status as a pressure group. After all, isn’t a pressure group’s success often measured by the number of dollars that can be sucked out of other people’s pockets?

In all this, there’s no mention that any of the individuals or businesses involved have rights—meaning moral entitlements to freedom from coercive interference while doing business. But in my view, Obamacare is a massive assault on individual rights that should be obliterated, as a first step toward achieving a free market in health care. I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, but I’m disappointed that nobody (including Obamacare’s worst victims) even seems to find it worth talking about.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

In response to a recent post called “Who cares about the doctors?” I received several thoughtful comments, including two that recounted poignant personal stories. As you read this first comment, ask yourself whether ObamaCare and the whole federal-state medical regulatory system treats physicians with the respect they deserve:

My wife did a mid-life career change from power systems engineer to doctor (ER). It was a family decision. We put our own savings and investments on the line to bet on her ability to take our family to the next level of success in America. We did this willingly, as free people intending to enjoy the fruits of our labors. When I look back at the amount of time, sacrifice and work it took from all of us, most of all my wife, to get to this point, the action of the Obama administration is breathtaking in its sense of entitlement to her labor and its arrogance in assuming that the doctors will go along.

Most doctors already willingly donate their time, money and labor to treat the poor. When it is no longer their decision where to apply their labor, then we have lost the country.

But of course, it’s not just the Obama administration that displays a “sense of entitlement to her labor.” For decades, both political parties have displayed “arrogance in assuming that the doctors will go along.” Now the question is: Will doctors keep “going along,” or will they start standing up for their rights? Listen to another physician expressing a sense of personal loss: Read the rest of this entry »

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the CEOs of both Google and Verizon have endorsed that portion of the FCC’s new National Broadband Plan that calls for “making high-speed Internet connections available to all Americans.” Oh, and by the way, the executives agree it should be accomplished with “minimal government involvement.”

Pardon me? Do these guys read the newspapers? The whole nation just witnessed what happens when government creates a new entitlement, and it sure ain’t “minimal government involvement.”

When Congress decided to make health insurance “available to all Americans,” the result was a sprawling bill that imposes unprecedented government controls on the health insurance industry. And of course, this entitlement mentality has a long history (think Medicare, Medicaid, and the prescription drug program) that demonstrates how controls breed controls.

And that’s the way it has to be. Once everyone agrees on any new entitlement—I don’t know, something like “making high-speed Internet connections available to all Americans”—then government must become involved. Why? Because the very essence of an entitlement is a claim by those who lack a value against those who have earned it. And government is the only agency that can enforce such a claim.

If the top executives of giant cellular and Internet companies can’t see that contradiction in their own op-ed, how can they hope to defend their companies from creeping regulation? What’s at stake here is the freedom that has allowed these industries to innovate, profit, and flourish—while more regulated parts of the economy stagnate.

Image: WikiMedia Commons

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 »

In a recent series of posts I discussed how increased government control over health care in America would devastate the medical technology industry and stifle innovation. But the negative effect that government interference has on innovation is true for any industry. From cookware to computers, men will only invest time, money and thought on developing new products if they project the payoff to be worth it. The more the success of a potential product is subject to the dictates of Washington bureaucrats, the less likely that potentiality will be made real. The more regulatory hurdles one has to overcome to achieve a dream, the less likely one will make the effort to overcome them.

This past Monday bore witness to the achievements possible to man when he is left free. In a hangar in the Mojave desert, Sir Richard Branson and his team at Virgin Galactic lifted the veil off Space Ship Two, the world’s first commercial spacecraft. Space Ship Two will take passengers to a height of 68 miles above Earth, well beyond the recognized border of space. It is one of a number of private spacecraft being developed in the nascent space tourism industry, which will make it possible for private citizens to experience wonders previously reserved for government astronauts.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s vital to see how the “bundle of rights” approach obliterates property rights as a moral principle. In truth, property rights are inviolable moral principles, protecting each individual’s sovereign right to keep the material values he earns and use them to support his life. This principle is violated when the very first “stick” is removed—that is, when property rights are infringed for the very first time. The crucial benefit of principles is that they serve as early warning systems, like the nerve endings in your skin, alerting you to any damage, no matter how slight, so that you can quickly identify the source of the pain and fight it. The “bundle of rights” approach is specifically designed to anesthetize you against awareness that your rights are being violated. That way, a thousand cuts can be inflicted—a thousand regulations can be imposed—and you won’t know what’s happening to you. Here’s how the authors sum it up: “[F]raming property as bundles of rights and forewarning of limitations weakens perceptions of ownership and decreases resistance to subsequent restrictions.” (Italics added). Here’s my translation: If legal professionals systematically avoid telling people they have a moral right to their property, there will be less messy resistance when those rights are taken away by government fiat. Under this concept, property rights can be selectively violated (or eradicated) by majority vote—rendering them in fact (but not in name) “bundles of permissions.” Read the rest of this entry »

Do you remember the moment when you turned the key in the lock of your first automobile, or your first house? Can you recall the sense of exhilaration you felt? “This is mine, all mine, and nobody can tell me what to do with it,” you may have thought. Part of what you were experiencing was the pleasure of ownership—exclusive personal dominion over an important material value.

If you’ve ever felt such owner’s pride, then you should be aware that according to theories long dominant in law schools, you don’t really own a car or a house—you only have a “bundle of rights” pertaining to its use. For example, if you have land, your “bundle” might allow building on it, walking on it, cutting down trees on it, digging in it, growing plants on it, fencing it off, and so forth.

This way of looking at property might strike you as idle academic chat. But it has serious real-world implications for anyone who values their property rights. Consider a recent scholarly article called “Property Frames” by two law professors (Jonathan Remy Nash, of Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, and Stephanie Stern, of Chicago-Kent College of Law) who use the bundle theory to answer the startling question with which they begin their paper: “How can we most effectively weaken property rights?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Want a sample of the burdens that employers must endure in resisting suits under the various “civil rights” laws that bar discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, disability, etc.?

A postal worker sued his employer, alleging age discrimination. To mount a successful suit, a plaintiff must prove he suffered tangible harm from an “adverse employment action.” Normally, that’s a discharge, demotion, pay cut, or other obvious detrimental event.

This particular plaintiff, however, claimed in effect that the adverse action was making him do some work. That is, he was transferred from a job with no duties to a job with some duties. Don’t believe me? Here’s his testimony, describing his job before the transfer:

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s U.S. Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, on March 26th, 2009 before the House Financial Services Committee on “regulating risk”, when he outlined his plan for a “comprehensive framework for regulatory reform”:

Supervision and regulation failed to prevent these problems…U.S. law left regulators without good options for managing failures of systematically important non-bank financial institutions…We must end the practice of allowing banks and other financial companies to choose their regulator simply by changing their charters; regulators must choose who to regulate. Moreover, our regulatory system must be comprehensive and eliminate gaps in coverage. Our regulatory structure must assign clear regulatory authority, resources, and accountability for each of the key regulatory functions….

What’s Geithner really saying here? Consider the following as a translation: Read the rest of this entry »