Politics: Action and Regulation

I just recently read a bit of text on Facebook posted by one of my friends. He was speaking out in favor of the Libertarian Party - probably the party I would support, if I voted (for those who care, this is why I don't vote anymore) - and its ideals, and all that stuff.

Within his post was this line: 'The point is, a true Libertarian thinks the only person with a right to tell you what to do is yourself.'

There was also the obligatory bit about how this does not apply when you are infringing on the rights of others. A lot of political and philosophical grey areas are hiding in those statements, and this was pointed out by someone, who replied with this line: 'The valid debate that plagues me is the extent to which ones actions do affect others.'

Now, I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what was meant by this phrase. I'm going to make a lot of assumptions - and I'm sure not all of them will be correct - and for that I apologize in advance to the person who made this statement. Not that anyone will ever know who you are, or that you will ever, necessarily, read this post, but I feel it necessary nonetheless.


Anyways. For this statement to be a valid argument in the context of what it is replying to, it must in some way point out a flaw in the concept of libertarianism, as laid out by my friend.

Here begins the reaching to make my own point. As I understand it, this statement is generally agreeing with the idea behind libertarianism - again as espoused by my friend - but puts forth the argument that there are many cases where an individual's actions can have great negative impact on others outside of the instances where said actions are infringing on others' rights.

I agree with that. It's very simple, and, at least on the face, seems to be a very solid argument in favor of laws and regulations that deal with things beyond infringements on basic human rights, such as the right to life.

This seems correct to me. However, let us take the idea to the logical extreme - because actions can adversely affect people, let's regulate everything.

Obviously, this solution is distasteful. You don't want someone telling you that you need to breathe at below a certain volume at all times. Certainly you don't want to deal with a law that prevents chewing with your mouth open, or talking at above a certain volume while inside.

Fact is, actions always affect other people. Regulating action does not prevent the effect from occurring. Never has, and never will. All regulation does is provide punishment for taking certain actions, or not taking a specific action.

Perhaps more importantly, many regulation provides a secondary level of actions that can be taken to impact others in a negative fashion.

As an example, imagine your worst enemy, or just your generally least favorite person. Now, imagine that person owns a restaurant, and has invested the entirety of his or her life into that restaurant. As a result of, say, health regulations, it would be exceedingly simple to release rats in the restaurant and call a health inspector, hence ruining that person's life with a regulation that was put in place with the intention of preventing public health problems.

There are, of course, regulations against using such regulations against another person and all that, but I believe my point has been made.

We're at an impasse then, more or less. You have an unappealing possibility at one extreme, where everything is regulated but actions still have the same impact on others. You have a somewhat less unappealing extreme on the other end of the spectrum of regulation, where every action but those that infringe on others' rights is allowed, if not necessarily encouraged. Here, as pointed out by the rebuttal to my friend's post on Facebook, many actions can be taken to negatively impact another person without receiving any punishment at all.

What's the solution, then?

To my mind, the solution is to impose proper regulation when appropriate - political action that I believe to be in concert with the ideals behind libertarianism, if not necessarily with the current incarnation of those ideals.. And, rather than sitting around and talking about abstract situations, I'm going to use a concrete example of what I mean.

In the United States, the commercial sale of food at, say, a restaurant is heavily regulated. You need to meet certain health standards to be allowed to sell food to others in any capacity.

This, at least, is the gist of it. I am by no means an expert in the health and safety regulations surrounding the food service industry. I'm sure we all know about health inspectors, and that they check into reports of unclean restaurants and the like.

Now, why does this regulation exist in the first place? Well, the answer is pretty simple - people don't want to eat food that is potentially dangerous, and, in many cases, it would take a great deal of effort to check up on the cleanliness of a kitchen on one's own, if such an action were even possible.

Does the regulation solve the problem? Yes, absolutely. However, it creates a slew of new problems. The regulations are often applied where they should not be. The costs of food from restaurants are, in some cases, driven up. Places such as A&W, previously famous because the restaurants brewed unpasteurized root beer on location, can no longer provide a product that, at least in my experience, many people wish could still be had in America. You have the possibility of easy sabotage, as I mentioned above. And, last but not least, not only does the government have to pay a great number of health inspectors, all of that money is coming from the taxpayer.

A great example of what I would consider an inappropriate regulation.

What, then, is an example of an appropriate regulation for fixing the same problem? Well, again not being super particular or, necessarily, correct in every aspect, Thailand has what I would consider a great solution for the problem, and it's really quite simple...

Do not require every restaurant to pass regulation, and have the restaurant itself request an inspector and pay for said inspector. When they have passed inspection, they are given a large sticker to place in a prominent location so customers can know that the restaurant has passed muster.

This creates, in my mind, a very nearly perfect situation.

Businesses with customers who are concerned with the cleanliness of the premises and the food itself will, naturally, end up paying for a regular inspector to come in so as to keep their credentials up to date. Those who cater to people who don't care, or participate in some practice that necessitates breaking some regulations, will be allowed to continue to go without being inspected.

On the customer's end of things, the information that is necessary for them to protect their own interests exists and is readily available. They can choose whether or not to endanger themselves by eating at a restaurant that has not been inspected, much as people in America can choose to eat raw meat or eggs.

And, to put a bunch of other things together, the regulations will not be imposed at inappropriate places, such as bake sales and other small, temporary instances of food service, prices will not be driven up unduly where they need not be, and no cost is incurred to the taxpayer or the government, as all expenses of the inspection are paid for by the businesses being inspected.

You can see here that the problem is largely solved, while very little in negative side effects occurs. There will obviously be cases where someone makes a stupid mistake or is impaired in some way, eats at a location that has not been inspected, and becomes sick or even dies. Then again, at that point you are guilty of something else entirely, whose name I can't quite remember at the moment. Criminal negligence, I would think, but it's been a long while since I studied anything even somewhat resembling law.

Anyways. This is already altogether too long, so I'll just say that you should all consider what you believe to be appropriate and inappropriate forms of regulation, in addition to simply arguing about what should or should not be regulated. In my opinion, there is always an appropriate way to regulate something, assuming such a regulation is necessary.

Now for the pun of the day. Hope you enjoyed the read, and if you have any comments, please deposit them below on your way out.

Pun of the Day: This is not really a pun. (This made me laugh, and since this blog is largely for my own entertainment, it's staying. Deal with it, bro.)