# Are there too many restrictions on our economic liberties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563 "2003-06-13T14:20:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/1 "2003-06-13T14:20:55Z")
This topic was suggested by an [article by Michael Kinsley](http://slate.msn.com/id/2084315/), which said > [@](#): > > On August 15, 1971, more or less out of the blue, President Nixon declared a freeze on wages and prices. Legislation authorizing this had passed Congress the year before, with little controversy. The freeze evolved into a system of formulas about who could get paid what, requirements about filing forms with the government and keeping records and posting notices, all enforced by a growing bureaucracy of wage and price cops. The controls lasted a couple of years at full strength and then faded away over the next couple. > > The notion that the government could tell everyone from General Motors to a baby-sitting teenager what they could charge—and did so—seems shocking in retrospect, at least to me. There was no real national emergency. It was part of a cynical re-election strategy to gun the economy while holding inflation temporarily in check. But at the time, controls were not just accepted but popular. When they disappeared, even those (like me) who had opposed them found it strange and, at first, unnatural. You mean, anyone can just charge whatever they want? How does that work? The analogy isn’t perfect. The right to set your own price isn’t as profound as the right to express your own political opinion. But it is, if anything, even more a part of every citizen’s daily life. And yet when they took it away, we freedom-loving Americans didn’t even miss it. I was professionally involved with these wage and price controls in my job setting premium rates for California’s worker’s compensation insurance. I think economic liberty is very important, and I think it gets less attention than it deserves. ISTM that businesses should generally be free to produce and sell any reasonable product at whatever price they choose. Workers should generally be free to take whatever job they like at whatever wage suits them. These shouldn’t be absolute rights, but any restictions of these freedoms should only be made when there is a clear need and when the restrictions are effective. Although Nixon’s wage/price controls are happily gone, there are any number of economic restrictions in place in various areas, including[ul][li]Minimum wage laws[_]Rent control[_]Regulation of property/casualty insurance prices[_]“living wage” laws[_]Fair trade laws[_]prevailing-wage laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act[_]Our economic freedoms are restricted as a side effect of many anti-discrimination laws. I’m thinking of laws that give the government a role in hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.Our economic freedoms are severely restricted by the zillions of regulations based on safety, environment, etc. [/ul]A particular danger is that restricting economic freedom often provides financial benefit to one group at the expense of another. So, there’s generally an interest group who won’t let it die. Also, many Americans fear unlimited economic freedom. They simply don’t trust the “invisible hand”.[/li] \*\* Are these laws needed to protect us? Do we need additional regulations? Or, are there now too many restrictions on our economic liberties? Which restrictions should be lifted?\*\* My #1 choice for elimination would be Davis-Bacon, which requires contractors doing work for the federal government to pay union scale. This law was designed to keep black, non-union contractors from under-bidding extablished contractors. Davis-Bacon raises government costs and provides no public benefit. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/2 "2003-06-13T14:25:38Z")
You’re becoming more libertarian daily. I believe that the benefits from regulation outweigh the benefits of an unregulated market. You don’t. Well, there’s another debate in the can. Next! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/3 "2003-06-13T14:28:39Z")
In general I would say no _to most of the examples you have cited._ Many of your examples have real and pressing reasons for their existence: - Anti-discrimination law is almost certainly necessary at some level, especially in the USA, a country where racial discrimination has been a serious problem. Maintaining social order is a legitimate function of government. - There is very little doubt that the benefits of fundamental workplace safety regulations far outweigh the costs. - Minimum wage and rent control do at a basic level protect the poor. I would submit that there is probably a bit more governmental interference than necessary, but you haven’t cited the worst examples. Govenment taxation and expenditures on inefficient industries reduced everyone’s economic freedom without any real benefit; look at the billions of dollars the United States hands out to ethanol producers or tobacco farmers, or building Osprey aircraft or what have you. Tariff laws, such as the USA’s protection of its rather inept and obsolete steep industry, are another. And if we look at municipal government, zoning and development bylaws are NOTORIOUSLY illogical and are usually based on pandering or outright corruption. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/4 "2003-06-13T14:51:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Also, many Americans fear unlimited economic freedom. They simply don’t trust the “invisible hand”.** And many can’t accept, without good justification, the idea that the market can solve market failures. In situations where the market fails to be competitive, or where competitive outcomes are sub-optimal, it is prima facie silly to throw up one’s hands and say, “Well, the market can fix that.” Yet that seems to be the sole libertarian-type solution to every problem. Imagine applying that philosophy to every aspect of life. “Priests fucking kids?! The clergy can fix that themselves.” “The sheriff is taking bribes?! The sheriff can solve that problem.” Whether your examples all fit into the category of market failures is a question I’m going to be drawn into. To suggest that those who oppose extremist lessie faire policies (or, more accurately, non-policies) are afraid and untrusting is an extreme case of making a hugely unwarranted and intellectually dishonest logical leap. It is no more fair than asking, “Why do Republicans hate poor people?” without hashing out the question of whether they sincerely do think that, for example, Bush’s economic really is the best for the country and its citizens. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/5 "2003-06-13T20:25:47Z")
Currency is a marker produced by and maintained by government, and used within the system maintained by government to represent work performed and therfore to serve as the basis for commerce. As that Jewish guy said a couple millennia ago, “Whose picture do you see there? …Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” If you want freedom from the restrictions that the government chooses to impose upon the currency that it creates and maintains, – _don’t use their money system_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/6 "2003-06-13T21:07:05Z")
It would be more useful to pick one specific area and debate the reasons that the gov’t should or should not interfere in the market. I for one would prefer to see the gov’t out of the market altogether. I doubt anyone here will change his minds on his overall philsophy. My std would be that the gov’t should be completely hands off. If intereference is to be justified their must be a compelling national interest. But I’d guess that the gov’t would incorrectly judge what was “compelling” 9 times out of 10. I would be content, though, if the gov’t did not try to direct our economic choices thru the tax code (rewording some behavious and punishing others). Eliminating the byzantine sytem of tex deductions and loopholes would be a great place to start. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/7 "2003-06-13T21:56:24Z")
Obviously, knowing me, you should know that I’m against most interference in the market, not simply for outcome reasons, but for liberty reasons (i.e. in some cases, I’m happy to accept an increase in people’s liberty even if it means that we get outcomes even I might not like). Probably the most controversial is my opposition to anti-discrimination laws. I would also note that I think many major businesses seem to do just as much to strangle and hurt the economy as the government does. Power companies rigging power markets. Companies buying up innovations, abusing patent law, and buying out potential small competitors simply to shelve them. It really takes its toll as well: once the big boys get in power, they use it, and we have far too many oligolopies that exist not because they are particularly efficient, but because they take advantage of legal, tax, and market loopholes to retain their positions of power and authority. The problem is: how do you deal with these companies without just making laws that are themselves ultimately just too restrictive in the long run, and often barely even serve their original purpose, much less continue to make sense after hurting the maybe one or two companies they were designed to curb? Then again, some government remedies have been pathetic. The most outrageous I’ve read about lately was the FTC’s “settlement” with Nintendo for basically cornering the game market, bullying retailers into going exclusive with their games, and tightly controlling all game production. The “settlement,” which was supposed to punish Nintendo, ended up being that Nintendo would give everyone who’d bought a NES a coupon for 5$ off a new NES cartridge: a punishment that, if gamers actually took Nintendo up on, could ONLY net Nintendo more sales (it wasn’t like getting 5$ as repayment for keeping prices high). Some settlement. ---
**Author:** ![djbdjb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@djbdjb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/djbdjb)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/8 "2003-06-13T22:12:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\* Many of your examples have real and pressing reasons for their existence: > > - Minimum wage and rent control do at a basic level protect the poor. > \*\* If the poor were helped by this, and no one else was hurt, we would all be for it. If the poor were helped by this, and some smaller group of people were hurt by this, we might have a debate if the benefits outweighed the question of fairness. But if some poor are helped and some other group that is equally poor is hurt worse, there should be no argument. Rent control laws benefit people who are first to arrive in some kind of queue for good that are subsidized. Minimum wage laws benefit those who have jobs at the expense of those who would like to get a job. Poor, young, low-skilled workers could want a job to gain experience, show their character and earn a (small wage). The higher the minimum wage, the more these workers are priced-out of the market, since businesses will only hire them if their marginal production is above their wage. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/9 "2003-06-13T22:13:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*You’re becoming more libertarian daily. > > I believe that the benefits from regulation outweigh the benefits of an unregulated market. > > You don’t. > > Well, there’s another debate in the can. Next! \*\* If you really think that december is becoming libertarian, than you’re completely missing the point. The question, for a libertarian, is not merely a cost-benefit analysis, but one of morals. If I were able to convince you that the benefits of reinstating slavery outweighed the costs, would you support slavery? Or are there things more important than optimal economic activity? js\_africanus > [@](#): > > And many can’t accept, without good justification, the idea that the market can solve market failures. I take it you mean that “… can solve every market failure”. But again, that not the point. Libertarianism does not assert that the market can solve every market failure any more than gay rights activists assert that same sex marriage would eliminate divorce. Libertarians support freedom because they thinks it’s good, not because they expect it to make the world a perfect place. > [@](#): > > Imagine applying that philosophy to every aspect of life. “Priests fucking kids?! The clergy can fix that themselves.” Well you see, there are some people that think that letting people do what they want with there money is somehow similar to priests raping little children, and then there are those that don’t. Oddly, it is the latter that are widely perceived as being whacko. Dunno how that came about. AHunter3 > [@](#): > > If you want freedom from the restrictions that the government chooses to impose upon the currency that it creates and maintains, – don’t use their money system. Even if you could engage in economic activity without using dollars, that wouldn’t make you exempt from the rules. Do you really think the government would let people off that easily? ---
**Author:** ![djbdjb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@djbdjb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/djbdjb)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/10 "2003-06-13T22:21:25Z")
[Article on minimum wage laws](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html) [And one on rent control](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/11 "2003-06-13T22:34:41Z")
I agree wholeheartedly with Apos. While I think that in most cases, the market is actually the best mechanism for the “overall good of society”, it’s the **free** in the free market that makes it the moral choice for anyone who claims to advocate freedom. Mimimum wage laws prohibit someone from working if their skills are not worth the minimum wage. Import restrictions aid domestic companies, but prohibit comsumers from choosing a cheaper product. The gov’t is the only institution to which we alot a monopoly on the use of force. For that reason, I fear the gov’t much more than I fear any company. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/12 "2003-06-14T00:17:58Z")
**The Ryan** , it was just a one-off. I know better than to think **December** will ever embrace noncoercion. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/13 "2003-06-14T00:50:51Z")
I’m curious **december** , why your list of bullet points doesn’t include corporate welfare, oil subsidies, or farm subsidies. My impression, although I’m sure I’m wrong, is that you’re not actually defending the purity of ‘economic freedom’, but that you just have a bone to pick with certain government programs (programs that coincidentally benefit people in a different economic group than your own), and you’re attempting to couch your gripes in theoretical terms. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/14 "2003-06-14T01:12:23Z")
You know, **Dumbguy** , for a dumb guy you ain’t too stupid. Thanks for bringing up a few talking points that should be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/15 "2003-06-14T01:24:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dumbguy \* > \*\*I’m curious **december** , why your list of bullet points doesn’t include corporate welfare, oil subsidies, or farm subsidies. > > My impression, although I’m sure I’m wrong, is that you’re not actually defending the purity of ‘economic freedom’, but that you just have a bone to pick with certain government programs (programs that coincidentally benefit people in a different economic group than your own), and you’re attempting to couch your gripes in theoretical terms. \*\* I don’t see benefits such as welfare and subsidies to corporations and welfare to individuals as restrictions on economic freedom. After all, nobody is forced to accept them! However, paying for all these benefits requires high taxes. The taxes do constitute a degree of economic limitation, since they prevent from spending a certain percentage of our own money. For your information, I am opposed to corporate welfare. Farm subsidies are ridiculous. An insurance executive I worked with was getting farm payments. Sam Donaldson gets farm payments. It’s unconcionable for middle class people to pay taxes that go to these wealthy individuals, merely because they own a farm. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/16 "2003-06-16T00:38:29Z")
Actually, subsidies do restrict economic freedom insofar as if you don’t take them (or aren’t “eligible”), you’re competing against companies that quite possibly can sell at a price which is, for you, below cost. I remember seeing a program that said, IIRC, that there is a group of companies that has a virtual monopoly of the sugar industry in the US because they are the only ones that receive subsidies, and it simply isn’t economically viable to compete against them without the subsidies. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/17 "2003-06-16T12:55:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > It would be more useful to pick one specific area and debate the reasons that the gov’t should or should not interfere in the market. Correct, else we have a meander discussion filled with a lot of empty generalities and assertions. I am also not a fan of sweeping ideological statements as a means of thinking about proper role of regulation and efficient economic systems. Indeed I rather destest ideology and politics, as represented by the phrase “economic freedoms”, in the place of pragmatism. > [@](#): > > I for one would prefer to see the gov’t out of the market altogether. Impossible, at some level regulation is necessary to maintain markets as well as maintain their legitimacy. One need only go to developing nations without any real form of market oversight to see the costs associated with utter absence of regulation. So, a reminder, while governmental regulation does represent a cost in the market, absence of regulation also has costs. Rather obviously there will be a balance between costs and benefits, and making sweeping statements on mere theoretical politico-philosophical principal does not strike me as an intelligent manner to arrive at effective policy. > [@](#): > > My std would be that the gov’t should be completely hands off. If intereference is to be justified their must be a compelling national interest. But I’d guess that the gov’t would incorrectly judge what was “compelling” 9 times out of 10. Shrug. People. Government is nothing but an expression of collective decision making. Of course the pecularities and agency problems associated with government make it usually less efficient and less correcting than markets. Usually. > [@](#): > > I would be content, though, if the gov’t did not try to direct our economic choices thru the tax code (rewording some behavious and punishing others). Eliminating the byzantine sytem of tex deductions and loopholes would be a great place to start. Chimera. Powerful interests will simply regenerate them. Nature of politics - and by politics in a democracy, nature of democratic play off between interest groups. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/18 "2003-06-16T13:29:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by djbdjb \* > \*\*If the poor were helped by this, and no one else was hurt, we would all be for it. If the poor were helped by this, and some smaller group of people were hurt by this, we might have a debate if the benefits outweighed the question of fairness. \*\* “We”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/19 "2003-06-16T13:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Coll wrote: > Chimera. Powerful interests will simply regenerate them. Nature of politics - and by politics in a democracy, nature of democratic play off between interest groups. Are you saying that our current tax system is in some way, fundamental unchangeable? That doesn’t make sense. We certainly could move it **more** in the direction of loopholes and special deductonis, and we could move it in the opposite direction. It is also possible to build restrictions into gov’t to make it difficult for gov’t (or people if you prefer that term) to use the tax code for social engineering purposes or to favor some industries over others. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563/20 "2003-06-16T13:55:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Are you saying that our current tax system is in some way, fundamental unchangeable? I am saying that any simplification with the idea of permanence is a chimera. Complexity will regenerate as interest groups generate exemptions through the political process. I’m not against simplification, just as I am not against trimming a hedge, but I also know that the hedge, so long as it is healthy and dynamic, will regrow. I accept that as part of having a nice green hedge. > [@](#): > > It is also possible to build restrictions into gov’t to make it difficult for gov’t (or people if you prefer that term) to use the tax code for social engineering purposes or to favor some industries over others. “Social engineering” aka policy is something that will happen, it either happens by commision or by ommision. Insofar as I am not a fan of artificial restrictions in the political realm I am not a fan of engineering constitutional barriers either, and rather clearly only such will be a permanet barrier to use of tax code for policy purposes. But then I am a pragmatist and dislike tilting at windmills. All the above should not, by the way, be taken as an argument in favor of the current tax code per se, or of any given level of governmental regulation. It’s an argument against a priori positions on the matter. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-too-many-restrictions-on-our-economic-liberties/181563.md?page=2)