Tweet [1]
David Boaz reminds us of a new made-for-TV documentary on the benefits of economic freedom [3]. (My good friend Richard Rahn is both featured in these programs and is instrumental in making them a reality.)
Economists on both the left and the right argue that excessive licensing raises prices for consumers without improving services; it can also deter potential workers from moving across state lines [5], dragging down employment growth.
“There is no labor economist who thinks it is good for the economy,” said Lee U. McGrath, legislative counsel in Minnesota for the Institute for Justice [6], a libertarian organization whose lawyers are representing Ms. Granatelli in a lawsuit [7] against the Arizona veterinary board.
(Question: How vocal has Paul Krugman been in exposing the inefficiencies, cronyism, and injustice of occupational licensing? I don’t recall seeing much by Mr. Krugman on this topic, although perhaps he’s spilled much ink opposing this species of monopolization and I’ve missed it.)
Thanks to FEE, and FEE President Larry Reed, for making widely available this splendid 1917 speech by George Sutherland, who a few years later became an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court [8]. A slice from Sutherland’s speech:
The trouble with much of our legislation is that the legislator has mistaken emotion for wisdom, impulse for knowledge, and good intention for sound judgment. “He means well” is a sweet and wholesome thing in the field of ethics. It may be of small consequence, or of no consequence at all, in the domain of law. “He means well” may save the legislator from the afflictions of an accusing conscience, but it does not protect the community from the affliction of mischievous and meddlesome statutes.
Bret Swanson explains the errors of the recent court ruling that allows the FCC to treat the internet as a public utility [9]. Let us hope that this ruling is overturned on appeal.
John Hasnas’s theory of why politicians routinely lie makes perfect sense [10].