Tag: regulation

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Let the Bedbugs Bite

Whenever governments interfere in the basic operation of markets, trying to “help” in some way, pretty soon an unintended effect emerges, and government must step in, again, to correct for that. And that second, corrective intervention then causes another problem, requiring yet another intervention. And so on.

This process of intervention-​upon-​intervention was detailed by economist Ludwig von Mises, and explained with elaborate reasoning. Since Mises’ day, the history of economic interventionism is littered with examples that reinforce Mises’ point.

Take bedbugs.

In 2008, I noted that bedbug infestations were on the rise. And that Congress was working to combat the problem with a special program.

I suggested that Congress should stay out of it.

What I didn’t know was that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was hard at work … in effect defending bedbugs. The EPA regulates pesticides. The cheapest and most effective anti-​bedbug pesticide had come up for re-​registration for home use. But the company that makes it decided not to re-​register. The cumbersome, bureaucratic re-​testing process cost too much, taking away the company’s incentive to sell the chemical. 

So now in Ohio — an apparently bedbug-​conscious state — the State Senate is petitioning the EPA to get a special exemption for this one product. No word from the EPA yet.

So, if a bedbug infestation breaks out big time, don’t blame Congress for not spending enough. Blame the EPA. Or blame the body responsible for the EPA. Yup, Congress. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Congress Moves to Censor the Net?

The Internet is not safe. Congress wants to regulate it. The most recent idea is to sic the Federal Elections Commission on Net freedom.

Recent hearings on something called the DISCLOSE Act disclosed that the act would “extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all ‘covered communications,’ including the blogosphere.” Or so say the Center for Competitive Politics’ Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch, writing on Reason​.com.

It’s hard to imagine a worse idea. No groundswell of citizens demanded this. So of course Congress is considering it.

Would they really try to regulate the blogosphere? 

The lead “reformers” in Congress say all they want to regulate are political ads on the Internet, not bloggers. But, as Smith and Patch note, the actual language of the current bill quite clearly leaves open the blogosphere for regulation. They also doubt the good intentions of the would-​be regulators, explaining how, in the early days of McCain-​Feingold advocacy, “the ‘good government’ crowd … denounced a deregulated Internet as a ‘loophole’ in campaign finance law, a ‘poison pill,’ ‘anti-​reform’” etc.

How can respectable Americans advocate regulation of speech, as if the First Amendment did not exist? It’s as if they are baffled by plain language: “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.…”

How can they live with themselves? 

For me, it’s a consolation to know that at least censors in Congress can still be thrown out, peacefully, with votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Allergic to the First Amendment

The drug manufacturer Allergan is taking the Food and Drug Administration to court.

The FDA has ordered Allergan to violate the FDA’s own rules against disseminating information about “off-​label” uses of a drug, uses that may be medically common but which, unlike “on-​label” uses, were not specifically certified as safe and effective during the FDA’s approval process. 

Once a drug has been approved, doctors may legally prescribe the drug for safe off-​label uses.

The FDA now wants Allergan to send detailed safety information to physicians about both off-​label and on-​label uses of Botox®. Yet the FDA bans promoting drugs for off-​label uses. A company may convey truthful information about such uses in only very restricted ways. 

Companies have paid through the nose for violating these restrictions. In 2009, Pfizer had to pay $2.3 billion for promoting off-​label uses of its drugs. Another $1.4 billion was looted from Eli Lilly for the same “crime.”

Allergan is understandably reluctant to obey a government agency’s edict to disobey other edicts promulgated by that same agency — especially when the price of disobedience can be so high. Better to solicit some judicial clarity. 

Better, certainly, than following orders and hoping for the best.

Will the court vindicate and enforce constitutional protections for freedom of speech in the realm of pharmaceuticals? Such a ruling would unshackle drug companies from ludicrous hindrance, freeing them to speak.

And it would help doctors and patients.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Carrying On About Carry-Ons

Poor Chuck Schumer. A vendor now charges for a service that it didn’t previously charge separately. So the senator wants to outlaw this.

“Airline passengers have always had the right to bring a carry-​on bag” without separate fees, Schumer fumes. It’s a “slap in the face to travelers” that some airlines now consider charging for carry-​on bags, a policy already in place at Spirit Airlines.

Horrors! The ugly spectacle of businessmen acting as if they … have the right to run their businesses freely, not merely as lackeys of congressional overseers.

Spirit, which is simultaneously reducing base ticket prices, says airplanes will empty faster if there’s less luggage looming overhead. I don’t like paying the fees, but airlines do have costs. And competition. An airline that kept heaping up fees until it was charging $1,800 per ticket wouldn’t get off the ground. Not if another airline was charging far less for the same journey.

The proper response to terms of trade that one dislikes is to complain to the vendor, take one’s business elsewhere, or both — not to decry any scrap of autonomy as a “loophole” in a regulatory regime not yet exhaustively draconian.

Yes, let airlines charge for carry-​ons. And let Schumer take the bus to and from DC. This will give him less time to pursue phony-​baloney crusades.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Who Killed Disco?

The age of the glittery mirror ball and loud, simple dance music is over. 

According to Ian Schrager, as recorded in Vanity Fair’s recent oral history of disco, it “wasn’t AIDS that made the nightclub business difficult. Government regulations did it in.”

Schrager and his partner set up their first nightclub, in Queens, for $27,000. The more famous Studio 54 — or is that “infamous”? — went up for $400,000.

“Now,” says Schrager, a major real estate developer, “with all the regulations, fire codes, sprinkler requirements, neighborhood issues, community planning boards … before you even put on the first coat of paint, you’re into it for over a million dollars. What it’s done is disenfranchise young people.”

And it’s not just disco that’s suffered. It’s worth remembering one sad side effect of all the red tape cities and states put up to new enterprises. It leaves the private sector desperate to focus on the surest forms of wealth generation, less able to serve niche markets. Like discos.

Nowadays, to establish and run non-​school,  non-​work activities for young people, volunteers organize community events, write grant applications and hold out their hats. This crowds out funding for needier, worthier charities, and litters our towns with poorly run government-​funded efforts. 

Personally, I don’t like disco — but could it be that things were better when entrepreneurs like Schrager set the stage? 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

A Contorted Practice, Challenged

In his book Stuff White People Like: The Definitive Guide to the Unique Tastes of Millions, Christian Lander notes that “Yoga is essentially stretching with guidance.… . You might think that since yoga is such a minimalist activity, it can be done almost anywhere. But you would be wrong. Yoga must take place on hardwood floor at a studio. Exposed beams are generally believed to enhance yoga experiences by 40 percent.”

With this droll explanation in mind, you might think that much of the “specialness” of yoga depends on trivialities, like “$80 pairs of pants.”

But the state of Virginia harbors no such cynical thoughts. It understands the secret of yoga’s ancient allure: The great chain of instruction must be regulated by the state.

Virginians are free to do yoga, even in their own dingy homes, and to inappropriate music, say Bach or the Turtles.

Further, any Virginian may teach yoga. Hey, it’s a free state.

But under no circumstances may a Virginian teach another Virginian how to teach yoga — not without paying heavy administrative fees in the state’s vocational licensing system.

Silly, you say?

Yes.

Thankfully, the Institute for Justice teamed up with yoga-​teacher trainers Julia Kalish, Suzanne Leitner-​Wise, and Beverly Brown to challenge the law, on Constitutional grounds.

Now that’s soothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.