|
Well, Filtherton, we've managed to go way off topic. To return to the topic: if you like big government and a regulatory state, you're bargaining away freedoms. I'll certainly agree with you that some tradeoffs are necessary - after all, the social contract is the price we pay for living in civilization. But please recognize that every regulation you put in place is an intrusion on your freedom, and every time you empower a regulator, that person is going to be impinging on someone's freedom. The question should always be whether giving up your own freedom is worth the policy objective you are advocating, and whether there is a way to achieve it without using government and without intruding on people's autonomy.
"Quality of life is better because of reg agencies?" For whom? Do you know that in a bunch of industries, the agencies are captives of the industry and use their power to set up barriers to entry so that others can't compete? In NY, for instance, there are bans on setting up private car companies that parallel bus routes; there are limits on the number of cabs; there are licensing requirements for hairdressers; there are all sorts of "regulations" that were put in place to "protect the public" but in reality are used to keep out competition. The regulatory state is just one more tool for people to do what economists call "rent-seeking." There is an entire industry here of "expediters" - people who can get, say, your building permit application to float to the top of the pile, fercrissakes.
BTW, the union movement grew at a time when workers were fungible. There's a reason why it's shriveling in the private sector now: they're largely protecting against an evil that doesn't exist so much anymore.
|