Regulating the Regulators

There are explicit costs of government in the form of taxes, and then there are hidden costs. Like inflation (what the left calls price gouging) and regulations (what the left and many on the right call necessary). Van Horn pens an excellent piece at Pajamas:

This entry was posted in Short Takes and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Regulating the Regulators

  1. joe says:

    The irony is in how those on the left who defend regulation, feel it imperative to defend it in total, because to go through the trouble of weighing the repercussions versus the benefit’s of a particular law does not serve their ends.
    Think about it, in a government that promotes a truly free market, when a new reg becomes law it immediately becomes nothing more than a new “out of bounds” on the playing field for the free market to avoid. The field itself is not changed, or distorted. Older reg’s are closely, and constantly scrutinised for effectiveness, and it’s burden.
    But the political left likens a new reg to somehow making life a little more fair, but only from the standpoint of it’s being added to the massive infrastructure of existing reg’s. They become a “good” in total, regardless of how harmful specific reg’s can become, so in the end, reg’s in total are what counts, and even the field itself can be distorted, in the cause of “fairness”. The term “deregulation “automatically becomes an evil, regardless of the outcome. Regulation once passed, can only be a good, regardless of it’s results. It’s only the prescribed “good intention” that counts.

    Look at the free market as operating on a running path, with regulation as rocks, and holes within that path to be avoided. The path is infinately long as is the case in a capitalist society, but limited in width. The biggest players are naturally advanced further down this path , so it is in their best interest to encourage the formation of as many barriers as possible, even if it means placing them in front of their own pathway. This is because they are the ones who have the advantage of seeing the clear path ahead, along with the added bonus of being an advisor in the shape of the course, and once the obstruction is passed, they can literally sprint up to the next obstruction. Like the leader in a marathon, they have the advantage of setting their own pace.

    But the rest of the contenders must battle for position with their opponents, while at the same time traversing the maze designed in part, by the leader.
    But in the end regulation, to the political left is not an end in and of itself, rather it is a means to an end. For they have in mind the slowest, most cumbersome, yet strongest runner in the race. They marvel at the size, and stature of this brute of a runner, and his ability to simply plow through these barriers, and stomp beneath his feet all the remaining runners no matter how stealthy they are. When this runner reaches the leader, he declares the race over. The political left informs us that this runner represents “fairness” and “equality”, that he runs for the collective good of all the runners. To this end, the rocks and holes only serve to stack the deck, to somehow prove that only their runner is worthy of all the medals handed out in the end.
    The problem is that this runner abhores not only competition, but the race itself. And to that end he eventually replaces the rocks and holes with cliffs,
    and walls, deforming the pathway itself into a circle, in which his potential compedators can never escape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s