|
March 25, 2004
Some
Further Thoughts on Government
Regulation
by Tibor R. Machan, Ph.D.
In
several forums, including one long book, Private
Rights and Public Illusions (The
Independent Institute, 1995), I have argued that
government regulation is unjust, a policy
unbecoming of a free society. Government regulation
is a form of prior restraint, meaning, the legal
authorities take aggressive action against citizens
before they have done anything that deserves such
action.
A
principle of justice is that unless one has acted
aggressively toward others, or there is extremely
good evidence that one is about to do so, no one
may restrain one from doing what one wants. No one
is authorized to rule another unless this other has
taken actions that are themselves an attempt to
rule others. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "No man
is good enough to govern another man without that
other's consent." (Indeed, as far back as ancient
Greece, some have recognized this point &endash;
see, for example, Alcibiades' debate with Pericles
in Xenophan's Memorabilia where Alcibiades
shows that legal measures that involve coercion are
not in fact laws at all.)
There are those who would reply that government
regulation is, in fact, consented to by way of the
electoral process, but this is sophistry. The
electoral process must conform to due process, not
override it, since none of us is authorized to vote
other people into servitude. We may vote on who
should administer the laws but not on what laws we
must live by; that's a matter of argument and must
evolve through the common law, not via the vote.
That is why a lynch mob is immoral and unjust -- it
aims to trump justice, of which due process is a
crucial element.
Since many people realize that others really
have no moral authority to govern them without
their consent, as well as that government
regulations amount to just such "governance," there
are massive efforts to evade or circumvent such
regulations. Arguably the huge legal departments in
major corporations are part of such efforts. The
motivation for this is very much akin to what
underlies the existence of black markets or
smuggling operations &endash; people do not believe
that bans on the production and sale of various
goods and services is morally justified, so they
work diligently and cleverly to dodge such
bans.
This is so even if what's banned is itself
unsavory, shameful -- for example, prostitution or
mindless gambling. What they do know, at least
tacitly, is that there is something radically wrong
about governmental efforts to suppress such trade.
It is a bit like when we know that police brutality
is wrong even if we disapprove of the person who is
its target, or when we know that beating someone up
for having insulted another is going way beyond any
kind of permissible response.
So, in business it is quite possible that a
reason why folks so often run afoul of "the law" --
à la Martha Stewart, for instance -- is that
much of the law bearing on them is understood by
them as harassment, nothing to do with crime or
civil order. All those government regulations in
banking, manufacture, marketing, sales, and so
forth impose burdens on professionals, what with
all the rules, fines, and even prison sentences
administered not for having violated someone's
rights but merely for having the capacity to do so
&endash; they might hurt someone, they might injure
someone, they might defraud someone, although they
haven't done so at all. Government regulation is
nearly all precautionary, preventive, yet in the
criminal law that's banned, deemed a violation of
due process. Only if someone has violated -- or is
very likely to violate -- another's rights, may law
enforcement go into action against that
individual.
So, one result of this precautionary nature of
government regulation is that those covered by it
work very hard to evade them. That's so, arguably,
because many people do not really believe the
regulations are just and thus consider them an
imposition they should not suffer. No, they
probably haven't some coherent, fully worked out
idea about this; but in their guts, as it were,
they sense confidently enough that there is
something amiss here. And this leads to their
treating not just government regulations but nearly
all laws as suspect, perhaps not really deserving
of compliance.
Machan
Archive
Copyright © 2004 Tibor Machan and reprinted
with permission.
Tibor Machan holds the Freedom Communications
Professorship of Free Enterprise and Business
Ethics at the Argyros School of Business &
Economics, Chapman University, CA. A Research
Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, he is author of 20+ books, most
recently, Putting
Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite.
More
Books by Dr. Machan in The Academy
Bookstore
Dr. Machan can be reached at: machan@chapman.edu
and machatr@home.com
You can respond to this
essay in The Radical Academy Forum
Enrich
Your Life With A Book About Politics & Current
Events
Enrich
Your Life With A Politics & Current Events
Magazine
|