The purpose of regulation is to prevent the abuse of power and prevent undue harm. So often, however, regulation is used to form barriers of entry. Corporations will lobby government to pass bills that require some costly process or equipment. Corporations will even have bills past that outlaw competition. If we look at the dairy industry, because factory farming tended to lead to unsanitary conditions, it was necessary for factory farms to pasteurization their milk to prevent the unsanitary conditions leading to pathogen ridden milk. Non factory farmed milk generally was sanitary, and could market their products as raw and better for you than factory milk. The factory oriented dairy industry was able to pass laws requiring pasteurization of all milk. Consequently, these non factory farms could no longer sell raw milk and were required to put the milk through pasteurization. As such, these non factory farms both lost the competitive advantage and had to incur the cost of pasteurization equipment.
But, the subversion of regulation is not always so obvious. If we look at something like mandated employee health care, it has a predictable anti small company effect. Large companies can afford employee health care owing to the number of employees they have allowing for bulk discount. For smaller companies, paying for health care for a few employees can actually turn a profitable company into a non-profitable company. And so, mandated employee health care has the general effect of decreasing small business - a desired outcome for globalists who seek to have large, un-contestable corporations controlling everything.
Not only can regulation be used to help corporations, they can also be used to expand government. The regulations against drugs in US provide an environment for illicit profiteering for the purpose of black budgets by sections of the US government. Where you control the enforcement against an outlawed activity, that exclusivity allows you to profit inordinately from that activity.
And even still, the subversion of regulation goes further into something most people take for granted. Licensing is a type of subversion of regulation that serves both as a barrier to entry and also as a control mechanism. Licensing of doctors ensures they know more about pharmaceuticals that healthy diets. It ensures doctors maintain existing costly treatments rather than applying less costly treatments and cures.
As I mentioned previously, certification and licensing are two different things. Licensing is an outlawing of an activity except when given special privilege by the government. How, in a society that is supposed to be free, can the government outlaw so many types of work? How, for instance can practicing law, something that is essential for citizens to get a good grasp of law and the legal system, be outlawed? How can doctoring, something essential for the health of society, be outlawed?
If the intent of licensing regulation was to prevent undue harm, the combination of certification and fraud prevention would be sufficient. Think about the scenario. In such an environment where there were no licensing of doctors, would you allow yourself to be operated on by an uncredentialed person, or would you require the surgeon had a certification? We can already see in the health field a proliferation of health certifications that are coming about because of the inadequacy of the education that comes with licensing. If licensing were removed, hospitals would still only employee certified individuals, but the certifications would be more varied, and the representation of certification would be more tied to patient outcomes, allowing for a competition in certifications, which would probably improve the industry.
What is the harm in letting non lawyers practice law? Would any intelligent person choose an unqualified lawyer if there were no licensing, but only certification? Given how important law is in society, it boggles the mind that its practice is outlawed to the ordinary citizen. It wasn’t always this way, and the current outlawing of practicing law started primarily in the 1800’s. And, as you might expect when you outlaw something so foundational to society, lawyers rule the US and the average citizen has almost no clue about law and rights. Just look at how many lawyers are governors and congressmen. And, with the ordinary citizen knowing so little about law and not being able to practice it, it is no wonder the court system has become so corrupt that the nickname for the Department of Justice the Just Us Department.
Regulation is a dangerous thing, but the danger can be managed by applying some principles:
1. "What undue harm or abuse of power is this regulation preventing"
- the loss of a right is an undue harm
- is the harm done truly undue? If someone hires an uncredentialed surgeon, is the harm the receive truly undue?
- if the information about a drug is known, is someone taking that drug and experiencing harmful effects from that drug a case of undue harm?
2. Would the market deal with the situation any way?
- if we look at something like licensing, certification would be the market solution to preventing quack doctors
3. Does the regulation violate any rights
4, Does the regulation support the formation or continuance of a cartel