Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The other role of the welfare state
Message-ID: <4355@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 19:55:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4355
Posted: Sat Sep 22 19:55:19 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Sep-84 19:55:19 EDT
References: <594@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

Let us not forget that the "regulatory welfare state" has, in many cases,
strayed a long way from its original goals of controlling the excesses of
the nasty old capitalists.  To an increasing extent, the state is really
looking after the interests of the same nasty old capitalists.

It is not hard to understand why this happens.  A regulatory agency can
be a pain in the neck, but it can also be a dandy way of crushing would-be
competitors and enforcing mediocrity on an industry.  You don't have to
do a better job than the new startup company, or develop a response to
the latest innovation that's going to radically change the business --
you just get the regulators to outlaw them.  There is no shortage of
industries that have stagnated under regulation for just this reason.

Given that the regulatory agency has such power over the industry, and
can be such a useful tool for enshrining lazy companies in their
dominance, one of the best investments a regulated industry can make is to
gain control of the regulatory agency.  There are various ways of doing
this.  The result is often partial rather than total control, but that
is usually enough.  It doesn't matter if the agency makes a nuisance of
itself from time to time, provided that it doesn't rock the boat too
badly.

The end result of this process is exactly the opposite of the usual
original intent.  Instead of protecting the victims of the big nasty
capitalists, the government is aiding and abetting the very practices
that it is supposed to suppress.

In short, the whole thing is another example of a basic principle:  if
you give a government power over something, that power will be used --
and not necessarily in the way you intended.  If freedom is to be
maximized, the power of government must be held to a minimum, whatever
that is.  Giving the government power over some area "because there are
problems that must be fixed" is generally a poor idea:  there is no
guarantee that the government will fix them, and it will retain the
power long after the original problems are gone.  It is better to
look for the minimum legal change that will push things in the right
direction, rather than giving the government total control and hoping
that they'll do the right thing.

Note that I said "held to a minimum", not "eliminated".  There are areas,
such as the cases Tim Bray mentioned (pollution, and exploitation of
those unable to protect their own interests [children]), where I see no
viable alternative to some degree of government intervention.  But this
is a regrettable and somewhat dangerous necessity, not a wonderful and
beautiful thing.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry