Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jay Eshelman, of Westminster, who is a business owner and a former Work Force Investment Board and River Valley Technical Center board member.
[P]aul Ralston’s recent commentary, “In Defense Of The Rules,” makes important points that I would like to elaborate upon, specifically, with regard to “… rules that gives the citizenry faith and confidence in the legislative process and outcomes. The rules are deliberately designed to protect the minority by providing an inviolable process for moving a bill into law.”
Beware the view through rose colored glasses. Clearly, the minority is not being protected by our Legislature. The question that is missing here is: Can it be protected by the Legislature?
If anything, today, the minority is being tyrannized. Be it one-size-fits-all education, health care, energy legislation or crony business subsidies, legislators are simply not equipped to micro-manage effectively. The problem isn’t that legislatures do a poor job. The problem is that legislators do too much of almost everything.
When I have this discussion with academics, the retort is always to the extreme, an “Armageddon response.” Criticizing legislative overreach must mean I’m against rules in general, that I espouse anarchy.
Nothing could be further from reality.
The adage that “government is best that governs least,” doesn’t mean government should not exist. It means that government, and more specifically, those elected to serve in the government, should always be cognizant of its propensity for “mission creep.”
Laissez-faire is not a vice. Private enterprise doesn’t have a monopoly on corrupt behavior. Acting in one’s self interest, I mean honestly acting in one’s self interest, requires the understanding that it takes two to tango. As a private business person, I realize that I can’t succeed unless everyone around me succeeds to one extent or another, and that it’s up to participating individuals, not governments, to decide with whom the game is played. In the realm of free markets, after all, I can’t impose my standards on anyone who chooses not to partake in them. That’s the key … choice.
As Milton Friedman said in his treatise “Capitalism & Freedom”:
“Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals, the technique of the market place.
There are few checks and balances available to individuals aggrieved by flawed legislation, at least inasmuch as there are checks and balances in the marketplace. We can’t choose the schools that best meet the needs of our children. We can’t choose our health care providers.
“The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary yet frequently denied proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.
“Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy, what we have been calling competitive capitalism.”
So … what happens when corrupt individuals in either system co-opt a transaction and breach their contract?
In this case, “government” plays its primary role of importance … providing a judicial system for redress of grievances. Small claims courts are amazing vehicles, leveling the playing field for everyone, rich and poor. In extreme cases, personal injury lawyers are chasing ambulances at every turn in the free market road. If an individual is harmed by the actions of others, he or she already has all power they need to right a wrong, unless, of course, the wrong is created by flawed governmental legislation. It’s difficult, if not impossible to sue the government, let alone sue or even fire the corrupt individuals enabled by it.
What happens when corrupt individuals co-opt the legislative process and create rules favoring an individual or group over another (cronyism), ostensibly in the best interest of society at large?
Nothing! There are few checks and balances available to individuals aggrieved by flawed legislation, at least inasmuch as there are checks and balances in the marketplace. We can’t choose the schools that best meet the needs of our children. We can’t choose our health care providers. Just as importantly, our teachers, nurses and doctors can’t choose the systems in which they ply their trades. One size fits all. There is no recourse.
And to make this circumstance worse, our Legislature has become more interested in appearances and political expediency. Act 216, the prescription drug bill, is a glaring case in point. Read the bill. It passed the Legislature. The governor signed it. The bill went into immediate effect. And yet there is no there … there. There is no definition, no specificity, no recourse. It is the embodiment of chaos and anarchy, posing in the name good intentions.
And, of course, consider Act 46, the notorious education bill. More elaboration is unnecessary in this instance.
In a free market, citizens, may, rightly or wrongly, choose not to participate in contracts they deem unfair to their self-interest. And if we don’t elect legislators who allow us to act on our own fruition, within the rule of contract law, and, perhaps fail occasionally in the process, all the while learning from our experiences, we will never succeed as a society. And just because some individuals can’t fend for themselves doesn’t mean we all can’t fend for ourselves.
That is the delicate balance our legislators must manage. In this case, “less” is almost always “more.” One size doesn’t fit all … never has … never will.
