AMERICANS are not free. Instead, we are hemmed in by a vast and intrusive state apparatus that monitors and structures nearly every part of our lives. Whether you measure by revenue, expenditure, debt or deficit, the United States federal government is the largest government on earth.
The Federal Register, which records governmental regulations, is more than 80,000 pages. There are 4,450 federal crimes. On top of all that, there are state laws and local regulations, which are so numerous as to be virtually uncountable.
Regulation is such an entrenched part of American life that most people fail to notice its intrusive and obstructive presence. Regulation inhibits some of the most vital pursuits of an individual's life. The freedom to enter an occupational field of one's choice, for example, is widely considered a necessary component of an autonomous life. Yet the government radically infringes upon even this basic freedom. State-imposed occupational licensing requires individuals who desire to enter a particular sector of the workforce to first obtain an educational degree or license. More than 30 percent of American workers are state-licensed.
Licensing's ostensible purpose is to protect consumers from service providers who lack the requisite skills. Unfortunately, it often imposes costs that make it difficult for economically disadvantaged members of society to enter certain fields. Due to regulatory capture - the process by which bureaucrats become beholden to the interests of the industries they are meant to regulate - licensing now often serves as a vehicle for those in a particular industry to exclude competition. In different states, for example, you now need a license to teach yoga, create floral arrangements or work as an interior designer.
The right to earn a living is not the only fundamental freedom that regulations infringe. Zoning laws and eminent domain eviscerate private property rights. Zoning laws designate sectors of a city for different purposes so that, for instance, if one owns a lot in an "industrial" area he cannot build a home there. But even supposing the government does let him build a home on his own land, zoning laws regulate the minutiae of that endeavor: how large the house can be, how far back it must be from the property lines, perhaps even the color of the house and the height of the yard's shrubs.
Eminent domain powers permit the government to seize an individual's home for "public use," an exercise authorized by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The traditional purpose of this power, as conceived by the drafters of the provision, was to remove impediments to public projects such as road building that required land assembly. In Kelo v. New London, however, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "public use" to mean any use that would generate more revenue for a city. This permits local governments to condemn and seize lower-class neighborhoods. Property owners must be provided compensation, but their consent is not needed.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
