David K. Williams, Jr.
Right here in Colorado, the state Public Utilities Commission is its own little politburo.
The PUC sits in judgment of how many taxis are needed in Denver. They study, they take testimony, they listen to arguments and they decide exactly the number of taxis needed to best serve the people of Denver.
Recently, they decided Denver has exactly the correct number of taxis and denied applications for an additional 300 taxi licenses.
PUC Commissioner James Tarpey explained the decision: “Cabs would rather be downtown no matter how long the lines (at taxi stands). The market has more than it can handle.” (
See the Denver Post story “PUC denies taxi permits.“)
See, Mr. Tarpey and the rest of the PUC are only looking out for the best interest of the public. See, they are smart enough to tell potential cabbies that they will only fail if they invest their privately raised money. See, the ignorant cabbies are so stupid that they are willing to invest their own money – even though they are only going to fail. See, the ignorant cabbies’ private market research is inferior to the government’s superior knowledge.
Thankfully the PUC is there to save them from their folly. Whatever would we do without smart people in government? Without them, private individuals would spend private money to provide services that the market does not want. How silly of them!
Those private business people sure are stupid for wanting to invest their own money somewhere it is not needed. They should thank the PUC for saving them the trouble of failing.
Of course, there is another way to look at it. It is a quaint, old-fashioned and completely discredited idea called “supply and demand.” It is supposed to work like this:
If a private person thinks he can provide a good or service to those that want it, he provides it. If enough people want it, he makes money. If not enough people want it, he goes out of business.
It is rather radical. Only crazy right wing nuts – you know, those ignorant “tea baggers” – profess to believe in such magic as a “free market.”
The scariest part of this “supply and demand” concept is that it is supposed to work without any government oversight. Crazy! I know. Thankfully, the PUC is there to make sure such unbridled lawlessness does not take over our economy. The collective judgment of the PUC is far superior to the business judgment of cab owners.
Can you imagine if cabbies were just allowed to enter the market and compete without any government permission at all? The thought is horrifying. It would be complete anarchy.
Thankfully, we have central planning. Historically, central planning has worked very well. (After all, why would we still be using it if it had a history of failure?) Central planning is based on the premise that the free market is way too complicated to be left on its own, and that smart regulators in government need to decide how much of a good or service is needed to best serve the public. The Soviet Union did an excellent job of this when it came to deciding exactly how much bread to produce for its people.
It is pure coincidence, of course, that existing cab companies just happen to be opposed to further cabs on the street. After all, they only want what is best for the public. More cabs on the streets means more competition for them and less market share and less money. But that is beside the point.
Existing cab companies do not care about additional competition. They only care about the good of the collective, and they know central planning is the best way to make that determination.
Denver Post Editorial Writer Alicia Caldwell has an article on the effects of the Colorado legislature’s regulation of payday lenders. (See “Hiding behind a tribe.“)
Last legislative session, the General Assembly all but put the payday lenders out of business in Colorado with new regulations. Our elected representatives decided these lenders were “predatory” and taking unfair advantage of their customers.
Ignoring, of course, that none of the payday victims customers were forced to use the payday lenders nor lied to or defrauded in any way. In short, the benevolent know-it-all legislature substituted its judgment for that of people that voluntarily used a service. The legislature decided that those poor, uneducated dumbass poor people using the service were too dang stupid to be allowed to make their own decisions and needed their betters to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
Ain’t government grand.
Now, it appears, some Indian tribes have the void and gotten into the payday loan business. Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, are not subject to state regulations. Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is aghast*. He believes the Indian tribes have teamed up with payday lenders and are committing a ruse to avoid state regulation.
So what?
The entire scenario demonstrates the abject absurdity of state attempts to control markets. When there is a demand for a service, people will have that demand met, regardless of state regulation.
The government should not spend a dime restricting voluntary transactions between adults. I know, that simple proposition makes me a crazy radical, well outside the norm of modern political thought.
Thank god.
=======
*Aren’t Republicans supposed to believe in free markets and less regulation? It is a rhetorical question. Of course they don’t. Not unless it’s politically expedient.
A. Libertarians believe in free markets.
B. Conservatives believe in free markets.
- Except in labor. Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to take jobs away from Americans. If an American company wants to hire a foreigner, who is willing and able to do a job just as well and for less money than an American, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.
- And except for marijuana. People shouldn’t be allowed to smoke marijuana. It is bad for them. If they would rather not get drunk but would rather voluntarily chose to smoke some reefer, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.
- And except for prostitution. If people want to mutually and voluntarily agree to exchange that particular service for money, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.
At what point do the exceptions overwhelm the rule?
C. Progressives don’t believe in the free market. It is cold and heartless. The government should use its force to keep free markets in check. Free markets are not for the greater good.
Conclusion:
Conservatives and progressives both pretend to know what is for “the greater good.” They know, deep down in their well-meaning hearts, that the government use of force is necessary to advance “the greater good.” They both know people are too stupid to make their own decisions and need a benevolent protector to set them straight. They, of course, are willing to be that benevolent protector.
Libertarians know that all of us make bad decisions, but using government force to correct them is arrogant, immoral and unworkable. When we abdicate our personal decisions to some arbiter of the “greater good,” we are knocking on the gates of serfdom. We’ve already traveled the road.
Today’s Denver Post editorial page features a “Point/Counterpoint.” They ask “is President Obama being unfairly blamed for his handling of the BP oil spill?”
Rafael Reuveny states that “from the onset of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, conservatives have criticized President Obama for not solving the disaster …”
No intelligent ones have. I am not aware of any one that thinks Obama can “solve” the disaster. Reuveny’s statement is absurd.
Reuveny then goes on:
The president had no choice but to rely on BP’s data on the size of the oil spill. Unfortunately, this is how the regulatory framework operates in the United States, particularly in the oil industry. By allowing the free market to govern itself, all information comes from companies that have an incentive to hide or distort information
Mr. Reuveny will need to explain what incentive, market or otherwise, BP has to “hide or distort information.” The facts are the facts. The damage caused by the oil is BP’s responsibility. If BP lies about the amount of oil being released, how does that help them in any way?
The assertion is nonsense.
Most people react to the term “antitrust” with favor, and support the antitrust efforts of our government. But is it possible that instead of protecting consumers, the government is actually hurting individuals with their antitrust cases? Considering the government’s track record, I think it’s fair to say that it’s at least worth looking into.
I recently [...]
Amanda Teresi (from the famous “Final Stimulus Package” video) has an excellent article in the Colorado Springs Gazette concerning free market health care reform, “Return to free market best hope for health insurance reform.”
The comment section contains the usual pro-government, anti-freedom rants. It also contains an all too common misconception of Christianity.
A commenter wrote: “Even though many [free market believers] are Christians, and have read the Sermon on the Mount, and have read the parable of the Good Samaritan, THEY DO NOT CARE!!!”
As you might imagine, I responded thus:
I am a Christian. I am not trying to be a smart aleck, but didn’t the Good Samaritan help the injured person himself? The Samaritan didn’t lobby the ruling Roman government to force others to help the injured person.
There is moral value in one individual helping another. There is no moral value in forcing a third person to help the injured person.
Jesus told US to love our neighbor. He didn’t say make your NEIGHBOR love your neighbor.
Too many of us Christians mistake government force for Christian charity. If we spent more time ministering to the needy and less time at Congress lobbying for the forcible imposition of Christianity (which of course makes no sense), the world would have far more Christians.
God is love. Government is force. Any attempt to use force to spread love is doomed to failure.
