Red Tape Cutting

There are many things wrong with regulations—almost as an entire category:

·         The definition.

·         The negative economic effects.

·         The beyond the Constitution regulatory tyranny.

As I’ve mentioned before, our founders, when they used the word in the Constitution—i.e., “regulate Commerce,” and “well-regulated Militia”—they meant

to make regular—to make sure something can happen regularly, without blocks or interference. That’s what the founders meant by regulation interstate commerce.

But in today’s government, regulation means something else: governmental power to decide when, how, and whether something can happen. It’s arguable that all government regulation prevents, rather than provides, regularity of something happening.

What we need is for government—especially government regulations—to get out of the way, so that what we want to happen regularly, like commerce, can happen freely.

President Trump cuts red tape
in ceremony in December 2014

A Just the Facts article, “The Effects of Regulations on the Economy,” by James D. Agresti, shows how regulation has actually prevented what it claims to be trying to do:

For example, a 2015 working paper from the Harvard-Kennedy School of Government found that regulations are likely the main reason why community banks’ share of the U.S. banking market fell from more than 40% in 1994 to around 20% in 2015. This is because “larger banks are better suited to handle heightened regulatory burdens than are smaller banks, causing the average costs of community banks to be higher.” Likewise, a 2016 paper in the DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal found that the 2010 Dodd-Frank “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”:

could actually be enhancing the consolidation of the banking industry, in direct opposition to its principal purpose—eliminating “too big to fail” banks. While the industry has intentionally trended towards consolidation in the past, the current dramatic increase of consolidation of banking assets is likely an unintended consequence of increased regulation. This consequence comes from astronomical regulatory costs passed on to community banks, as well as increased capital requirements that diminish these banks’ competitiveness. Dodd-Frank has exacerbated this problem, and it will likely result in further increased consolidation of the banking industry.

What do we keep saying about the unintended consequences of government interference?

If the government wants to implement something beyond the proper role of government, not only will government fail to achieve the stated goals; it will likely do exactly opposite of the stated goal.

Why isn’t that obvious enough that people would stop wanting government to interfere?

It’s hard to get data on the negative effects of regulation on the economy. As Anne C. Steinemann, author of the textbook Microeconomics for Public Decisions, says, it’s pretty easy to create a cost-benefit analysis that will “produce a desired outcome,” and “it is practically impossible to predict all the future impacts” of a government program, “let alone their magnitudes and their probabilities of occurrence.”

An example provided by Agresti compares pro and con arguments. On the pro side, the Obama administration drafted a report in 2014: 

Estimating the costs and benefits of major federal regulations from 2003 to 2013. It concluded that the costs were somewhere between $57 billion and $84 billion, while the benefits were much greater at $217 billion to $863 billion.

Since we were in an elongated recession without the expected recovery through most of those years, that seems like it could be just a wild invention to say, “You think this is bad? Imagine how bad it would be if we hadn’t stepped in.” You can’t exactly “prove” an imaginary alternate universe.

Meanwhile, a 2013 paper in the Journal of Economic Growth found: 

The effects of federal regulations on the U.S. economy have been “negative and substantial.” They estimate that GDP would now be more than three times larger if federal “regulation had remained at its 1949 level.”

Which is right? Probably the one that coincides with the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization. In other words, government regulation, which is rule by unelected bureaucratic fiat—or tyranny—is unable to lift an economy out of poverty and into prosperity. So if the pro-tyranny side is claiming their interference is creating all kinds of magical benefits, chances are they’re skewing the data for their purposes or simply outright lying.

Agresti suggests there are plenty of other indicators to lead to the conclusion that regulation is a negative on the economy:

A key driver of economic growth plummeted in the wake of two major regulatory expansions in modern U.S. history. This element is productivity, and as explained by former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (and various other economists with wide-ranging political views): “The most important factor determining living standards is productivity growth, defined as increases in how much can be produced in an hour of work.”

The Journal of Economic Growth study, mentioned above, uses historical data, of which there is an abundance, and finds

that regulations have “strong and robust negative effects” on economic growth, and these “results are qualitatively consistent with those obtained from studies using the various cross-country and panel data sets on regulation.”

Notably, regulations harm the economy by harming productivity. What we can see is that federal regulations spiked under President Carter (1977-1981) and Obama (2009-2017). “In the wake of both of these regulatory expansions, productivity growth crashed,” as you can see in the chart:

Chart from Just the Facts

So, while we don’t have absolute cause-effect proof, there is plenty of evidence for reasonable people to see the harm government regulation (which is, almost by definition, over-regulation) does to the economy.

What we ought to insist on is adherence to the Constitution; that would give us plenty of evidence that freedom from regulation is good for the economy. But we haven’t tried that experiment in a very long time. The Congress has mostly abdicated its legislative authority to the regulatory arms of the executive branch. And the courts have mostly bowed to the “experts” of those regulatory commissions.

However, there has been some recent progress from this administration: the FCC’s net-neutrality repeal, HHS healthcare reforms, EPA details, some Education Department deregulation. These are actual campaign promises President Trump made that he is keeping.

There are three ways to accomplish regulatory reforms:

·         Executive orders ending the executive orders of the previous administration (easiest to do, but also easiest to reverse by a future administration).

·         Legislation requiring change, and returning responsibility for lawmaking to Congress, and, in many cases, returning the judicial functions to the judiciary, instead of leaving all powers in the hands of regulators to determine law, prosecute, and punish.

·         Reform from within regulatory agencies, which depends on appointees to champion the goal of deregulation.

·

Adam J. White, writing for the Hoover Institution (in “Trumping the Administrative State”), says, ”2018 will mark the beginning of a steady wave of agency decisions that will immediately be appealed to federal courts.” The most high-profile of these

will be filed strategically before courts staffed disproportionately by sympathetic judges in Washington, D.C., or on the West Coast. This litigation may come to resemble the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s immigration and refugee orders: Judges will scrutinize agency actions much more aggressively than before. The traditional deference by judges to regulatory agencies’ decisions is unlikely to prevail, and courts will undoubtedly invoke statements by the president or by his appointees that they see as undermining the credibility that agencies usually are afforded. (This will be quite a turnabout after Democrats less than a year ago criticized President Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, for having questioned the amount of deference” that courts give agencies.)

Of the legislative option, he says this is “an opportunity Republicans may not enjoy again for a long time.” And he adds, if they fail to use it,

It would be disappointing and ironic: Congress’s inaction is itself one of the main causes of our modern administrative state. By failing to legislate on the issues of greatest national interest, Congress creates a policy vacuum that agencies fill unilaterally with regulations. Lawmakers further compound this problem by failing to reform the antiquated appropriations process that no longer ties Congress’s oversight of agencies to its constitutional “power of the purse.”

As for the third option, he makes these suggestions for the regulatory agencies:

They can unilaterally adopt reforms to promote transparency and accountability within their own houses. Perhaps the best example of this so far are the efforts at the Justice Department and Education Department to scale back their reliance on “guidance” documents, a broad category of agency pronouncements that regulate the public but that do not undergo even the minimal procedures for public accountability otherwise required of new regulations. If these two departments succeed in reforming their own practices, they could come to be seen by the public (and by judges and legislators) as the regulatory equivalent of “best practices,” raising the bar for what we expect of other agencies.

So, we’re at a time when we have at least some reason to be hopeful.

In his conclusion, White talks about the most lasting reforms of the Reagan era; they lasted because they became systemic. They became the expected practices over several administrations. Based on that, he says,

Years from now, we may find that some of the Trump administration’s most important regulatory reforms in 2018 were the ones that attracted the least attention. Executive orders and regulatory repeals announced to great fanfare are very important; even more important are reforms changing the culture of modern regulatory agencies, achieved through sustained effort within those agencies, to little fanfare and no ribbon-cutting.

In one of the announcements, President Trump cut a big red ribbon, to mean cutting the “red tape.” I hope his commitment to that is real. And I hope the results will become sustained changes that return us to the freedom that helps us thrive and prosper.

Defining Net Neutrality

This past week net neutrality made its way into headlines—and panicked Facebook posts. It is because the FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Trump, has decided to undo the net neutrality rules Obama instigated in 2015.

internet cyber cabling, image from here

From the panic, you would think the return to what the internet always was before the recent interference was going to deprive all Americans of the freedom to google.

So I thought maybe we should review what’s going on, to lower the panic level.

As I’ve written before (even about this very topic), there’s a Spherical Model axiom:

If the government wants to implement something beyond the proper role of government, not only will government fail to achieve the stated goal; it will likely do exactly opposite of the stated goal.

So, if the government is trying to make the internet neutral, you can be pretty sure it will not make the internet neutral, if that ever was the problem. It will interfere, and the interference is likely to favor some and disadvantage others.

The panic seems to be saying that we can’t possibly live without government regulation of the internet—even though the internet flourished unhindered, with innovation after innovation, for it’s first several decades, up until Obama's year or so in office.

I don’t really understand the reason for the panic (other than media fear mongering). But I can be pretty certain that turning over something to five government officials is not a good way to decide what any free person or company can be permitted to do on the internet. Remember, the administration that imposed net neutrality is the same administration that weaponized the IRS against non-profits that promoted ideas it didn’t approve of. 

To repeat something I’ve said before (again, about this very topic), regulation is one of those words that government has stretched beyond recognition:

In dictionary world, like the one our founders live in, the word “regulation” means to make regular—to make sure something can happen regularly, without blocks or interference. That’s what the founders meant by regulation interstate commerce.

But in today’s government, regulation means something else: governmental power to decide when, how, and whether something can happen. It’s arguable that all government regulation prevents, rather than provides, regularity of something happening.

About net neutrality, Senator Cruz has long spoken up. I believe it was during the presidential campaign that he said this:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the internet; the internet should not operate at the speed of government.

Just as the so-called Affordable Care Act leads to less care at greater costs, you can be sure so-called net neutrality leads to less internet freedom, not more of the freedom we expect of our free-market internet.

The supposed problem has to do with various internet service providers providing streaming services. The net neutrality requires them to be neutral about providing services at the same rates and speeds, no matter how much bandwidth is required. They are not allowed to provide greater speeds for a higher price to those willing to pay for the better service.

Instead, those five regulators sitting in faraway Washington decide that the greater service must be provided at the same cost, regardless of how illogical or impossible it is to do so.

The end result is that the market is not allowed to work out the issues, and that means there is no profit incentive to improve service or options in areas where little choice is currently available.

This Being Libertarian piece gives some explanation:

So why be skeptical of something we’re told is meant to keep the internet free?

Well, for starters, most plans aimed at freeing a market don’t include the FCC placing 400 pages of new regulations on that market. Likewise, it’s always a safe bet that whatever a bill is sold to the public as, it will undoubtedly do the opposite. Much like we’ve seen with our very ‘Affordable’ Care Act, or the invasive Freedom Act that culminated from the Patriot Act, net neutrality is anything but ‘neutral.’ Instead, it vilified ISPs, claiming that in its absence they would be able to restrict internet access to their customers at a whim. Although they couldn’t recall a single instance of this happening, or provide any reason that ISPs would have for doing that, the FCC shifted the control from the providers over to the government in order to save us from this preposterous threat.

Just like that, net neutrality became another political tool, used to reward select groups at the expense of others.

Senator Ted Cruz
Image from Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo, found here

As Senator Cruz and Michael O'Rielly explained this week:

The internet has changed how we communicate, engage in commerce and live our lives. It not only provides a platform that can be used to promote free speech, but serves as a great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity by dramatically reducing the barriers of entry for anyone with a new idea and broadband connection.

Unfortunately, because the nature of government power is to control, tax and regulate, there will always be government officials who will seek to implement policies to increase these inherent powers. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Obama administration made the decision to set aside decades of bipartisan agreement and enact a radical proposal that reclassified the internet as a regulated public utility. The Obama-era regulations give federal bureaucrats new authority to regulate pricing and terms of service and eventually even collect billions in new taxes.

This policy not only threatens investment across the United States but seeks to force companies of all sizes to ask the government for prior approval of business decisions. The end result is less broadband, less innovation and less freedom for the American consumer.

Thankfully, relief will soon be on the way, as the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Ajit Pai seeks to repeal the so-called Open Internet Order and return the internet to its original classification as an information service, which allowed the internet to flourish.

The repeal of the order is simple enough to accomplish. But the panic may lead to additional interference. Senator Cruz further explains the next challenge:

But, the restoration of internet freedom may be short-lived, as there are already scores of politicians and state and local regulators who have indicated an interest in replicating the Obama administration’s fatally flawed rules at the state and local level. As harmful as the FCC’s rules have been for broadband investment and innovation, replacing such rules with a patchwork of state and local requirements would have an even more detrimental effect on the internet.

Allowing the Obama administration’s dangerous policy to infest the internet through state and local government mandates serves no purpose other than to stifle America’s entrepreneurial spirit, frustrate innovation, and block economic opportunity.

The internet has been a great example of how freedom and free market lead to thriving. Government regulation didn’t lead to all the innovation and online information and marketing; staying out of the way except to protect life, liberty, and property allowed that.

Let’s quickly get back to this digital experiment in freedom and prosperity.

Press Delete

I don’t want to talk much about Tuesday’s presidential debate. But that’s the inspiration source for today’s post. Ted Cruz offers a plan to get rid of five federal departments: the IRS, Energy, Housing, Education, and Commerce. (Yes, he accidentally listed Commerce twice in the debate; big deal.) It got big cheers. So maybe it’s worth looking at the suggestion.

Cruz's logo for the plan to get rid of these five departments

Cruz’s point is that the way to get the budget under control requires discontinuing expenditures for things that aren’t authorized in the Constitution, and combine that with major tax reform—to a flat tax. That simplification and relief to businesses would leave more money in the private sector, freed up to be used in a growing economy.

The way things are budgeted in Washington is different from your household. In a lot of ways. One way is that they only look at revenue estimates, not how leaving money in the hands of citizens will affect the economy. So, in Washington, a tax cut must be “paid for” to be revenue neutral. You’re supposed to ignore the Laffer Curve and assume you get less revenue with a lower tax, even when that is known not to be so.

You do spur the economy with a tax cut. And you get more taxpayers willing to pay the tax rather than find tax shelters. So you can get more revenue. But the government will still have trouble making ends meet if it keeps up the same spending rates.

The Spherical Model suggestion all along has been to spend only on what the Constitution enumerates as part of the federal government. So I’m happy to see a candidate who agrees, and spells out some of the first steps toward that end.

Cruz additionally suggests other means of eliminating extra-Constitutional expenditures. But for today’s discussion, we’ll just look at the five biggies he mentioned in the debate.

Do we need the IRS? 

We didn’t have an IRS from 1776 to 1913, when the income tax was instituted. There’s a treasury department, and revenue comes in somehow. The income tax was sold with a promise that it would affect only the most wealthy, and would never go above 7% (the original rate was 1% on income above $3,000 to 7% on income above $500,000). That promise was thrown out the window within just a few years, when it suddenly seemed necessary for everyone, and at a rate up to 95%.

So, anyway, the IRS wasn’t necessary before the income tax. Is it necessary with an income tax? Not if the law is simple enough, which a flat tax is. You still need a way to collect the taxes. How do states do it? There aren’t state-level IRS agencies. What is the mechanism? Probably a revenue department, connected to a department of the state treasury. There will be codes and forms, and formulas. There’s no doubt that a state can come up with a way to collect their revenue.

But there’s no IRS, and particularly no IRS that targets individuals and organizations for political reasons. And no IRS that can used for either targeting or favoring various earners.

I can imagine a country after deleting the IRS, and it looks lovely.

Do we need the Department of Energy?

The stated mission, according to the government website, is: “to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.” 

So the question is, what does the Constitution say about energy? That would be nothing. But, then, gas-powered engines hadn’t been invented at the time, and certainly nuclear power wasn’t being considered.

But, just as the IRS generates no income (it merely confiscates it from citizens), the DOE generates no energy. As for ensuring America’s security, that comes under the Department of Defense, and possible the State Department through diplomacy. Does the Constitution require the federal government to ensure prosperity? Not actually. It does expect the federal government to ensure the right conditions—fair and consistent laws, standard medium of exchange, for example. But it doesn’t require the federal government to get involved in energy development or any other commodity or utility. The government has “volunteered.” It takes our tax dollars, and distributes billions to companies it decides to favor (remember Solyndra). It subsidizes, in an attempt to alter the market, rather than trusting that the market will lead to the greatest innovation and best result for the people.

The DOE became a cabinet-level department in 1977. Its purpose was to combine the Defense purpose of developing nuclear weapons with the possibility of creating nuclear energy. We used to live near the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State—and felt quite safe there. It was part of the DOD when we got there, with both energy purposes and development of nuclear storage (vitrification was the main method, still underway I believe). But it was in the conservative corner of the state, and when Bill Clinton became president, he placed the site under the DOE. If felt much like the oil industry does when gasoline prices drop below $2 a gallon: people get laid off, or leave for other opportunities. Those who stay miss the days of growth, rising pay, and security.

It is likely that the free market, if not stifled by the DOE, would innovate and provide all the energy we need—with plenty to export as well.

We would still have energy—probably more—without the DOE. Let's delete the DOE?

Do we need Housing and Urban Development (HUD)?

What does the Constitution say is the federal government’s responsibility related to providing housing and building urban areas? It’s silent on that too? Hmm.

Did we have housing before HUD? Well, government-provided housing was a Roosevelt invention in 1937, and became a cabinet-level department in 1965. We had housing before that, clearly. In fact, housing is what individuals have built in response to the basic need for shelter wherever people settle.

The free market is pretty good at providing “affordable” housing. Intervention, to provide “affordable” housing—as with every other intervention of the federal government beyond its proper role—causes prices to remain high. It interferes with supply and demand. Cities with the most interference tend to have the least affordable housing—putting even relatively high earners in the category of those who can’t afford housing. Without the interference, the market would settle the price at what people are willing and able to pay. What a concept!

So, let’s delete HUD.

Do we need a Department of Commerce?

Again, what does the Constitution say? There is actually a role, referred to as the commerce clause. It refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

So then we need to know what regulate means. Back in the day, when the Constitution was written, it was commonly used to mean made regular, functioning as expected. A well-regulated clock, for example, would be set to the correct time, wound up, and allowed to keep accurate time. A well-regulated militia would be one that had members of the citizenry armed and practiced in their ability to work together in defense.

So well-regulated commerce would mean commerce that happens regularly, smoothly, without hindrances getting in the way. And the federal government was supposed to make sure that regular free commerce could happen internationally, interstate, and with Indian tribes.

Unfortunately, the meaning of regulate has been twisted over time to mean the government micromanages, controls, limits, and makes all decisions concerning. So we’re spending $10B a year to have the government favor cronies around the world.

If we go back to the original meaning, suddenly there’s no need for a cabinet-level department. All we need is an expectation of free trade within the United States, and treaties that lead to free trade abroad.

Deleting the Commerce Department would mean deleting mounds of red tape, and actually lead to the free trade the Constitution intended. Press Delete.

Do we need a Department of Education?

We’ve only had this department since 1980—under Jimmy Carter, not Reagan, who was elected that year but didn’t take office until January 1981. Did we have education before 1980? Yes. I am an example of a student who went through my entire public school and college education before there was a Department of Education.

Does the Constitution require the federal government to educate the populace? No. It’s not mentioned. There are those who can argue that government has an interest, and therefore a role, in an educated populace. But even those who successfully argue that viewpoint can’t justify a federal government takeover of something that is a parental responsibility, possibly aided by local government, or state government as the least local.

As always happens when the government steps beyond its proper role, the goal of more efficiently and effectively educating students is exactly what fails. Scores are lower. Graduation rates are lower. Preparation for the job force is compromised. And the cost for this outcome is triple per student what it was before the Department of Education was created. And lately they make the fallacious claim that Common Core is a national solution—providing standards that will improve our educated place in the world. Whenever the federal government says something like that, you can trust they are heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

The Department of Education has also stuck their fingers into higher education, with the purported purpose of making college more affordable. So you know it would do exactly the opposite. Since its “help” began, the cost of tuition has increased at a rate 2 ½ times the rate of inflation. If you’re having trouble with the math, because of your education, that simply means it’s a lot more expensive to get a college education than when the government stepped in to “help.”

If it were only money, we could almost forgive the government for being wrong but well intentioned. But it has overstepped boundaries to impose social engineering. It tries to force schools to allow biological males into dressing rooms with underage females. It controls curriculum and accreditation. And it has a stranglehold on hiring in higher education, so that your young person is at least three times more likely to hear the opinions of a leftist (i.e., southern hemisphere tyrannist) than a conservative (northern hemisphere freedom lover). If education is meant to teach students to think, the Department of Education is meant to force students to think what the government wants them to think. That’s not education; this is brainwashing.

If you value education, delete the Department of Education. Return the money and the decisions to the local level in contact with the actual students, and let the free market, with its innovation, adjust the price.

So, yes, let’s select the IRS, DOE, HUD, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Education, and press Delete. And then empty the trash bin so they can never be brought back.

If you’re wondering how a President Cruz would accomplish this deletion, and how disruptive or sudden it would be, here’s what he says:

To do that, I will press Congress relentlessly. And I will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose central charge will be to lead the effort to wind them down and determine whether any programs need to be preserved elsewhere because they fall within the proper purview of the federal government. I do not anticipate lists to be long.

And in addition to these big five, which he calls “Five for Freedom,” he’s also planning on deleting an additional 25 specific agencies, bureaus, programs, and commissions. And then he’ll look further, and get rid of everything that exists in defiance of the Constitution—which he has known from memory since his early teens. He knows the law. And I agree with him that America thrives whenever it abides by our brilliant, inspired Constitution.

The Libertarian Internet

There’s a principle we keep getting reminded of lately: if the government wants to implement something beyond the proper role of government, not only will government fail to achieve the stated goals; it will likely do exactly opposite of the stated goal.

Today’s example is “Net Neutrality,” with the purpose of assuring a free and fair internet.

by A. F. Branco, November 17, 2014

The background for this relates to a rural Midwest area where only one internet provider, Comcast, was available. And they were slowing the speed at which downloads could occur for video streaming site Netflix.

If free enterprise were allowed to solve the problems, this would be solved in some combination of alternatives entering the marketplace, or costs going up for a service that takes up so much bandwidth, probably passed along to consumers. Then, if consumers weren’t satisfied, competition would lead to more alternatives, greater innovation, and lower prices. Especially in internet technology that has been the rule. In fact, that’s how the market handled this singular case.

But government sees an area where it has very little control, and therefore by definition would like more power, and offers “help” as a way to get it. Government will step in and make things more “fair”—so that the Comcast/Netflix difficulty never happens again. It will solve this tiny, localized, already-dealt-with problem by imposing restrictions, rules, and controls—maybe even a government kill switch for the entire internet—so we can feel assured, with government bureaucrats at the helm of the world’s communications network. Who thinks that sounds like a good solution? Raise your hands.

A few large companies, mainly related to cable communications, are in favor. So that they can block out competition and control the market. It’s not about better service for you.

While looking for the best way to explain why you should call your representative and express your extreme disapproval for the creation of a new “department of the internet,” I came across Stu Burguire’s entertaining and thorough version. Stu is an associate of Glenn Beck, and has his own TV show on TheBlaze.com on Saturdays. Blaze blogger Wilson summarized Stu’s points:

• Net neutrality will not help your internet experience.
• The government will not make the internet better.
• Companies won’t be ruining your internet experience anyway.
• The arguments in favor of net neutrality ignore the advancements in technology that would solve the supposed problems being addressed by net neutrality.
• There is no compelling reason for the government to get involved.
• The internet is absolutely not a human right.
• The truth about the Comcast/Netflix battle that is used as the evidence to support net neutrality, proves the exact opposite of what net neutrality supporters argue.
• But, other than that, net neutrality is awesome!

Except, don’t take that last one seriously; there very well could be even more non-awesome things about it.

Rather than my explaining further, I’ll send you to watch Stu’s 7 ½-minute video (unable to embed, but you can watch it here), and afterward I’ll add a few comments from the Spherical Model perspective.

OK, assuming you enjoyed that...

My favorite point is that this government, which couldn’t get one single website up and running is asking you to trust the elite government experts with control of the entire “interweb.” Do they have a sense of irony, or what?

The internet is a rather large microcosm for examining the world of the libertarian. This is what the country would be like with libertarian government. New technology. Stuff getting lower cost and more widely available all the time. Freedom to do business or say pretty much whatever you want. Freedom to connect with whoever you want, assuming willingness of the receiver. Things keep getting better, faster, and cheaper. Yay!

Of course there’s some bad along with the good. Pornography. Lies. Theft. Fraud. All things that are already illegal in the non-virtual world for good reason. Yet there they are. And sometimes we’re bombarded with them—images we don’t want to have to unsee. Not to mention pop-up ads interrupting our experience.

In other words, in the libertarian world there are some bad things sharing the same neighborhood with the good. And the libertarian doesn’t bring in officials; the libertarian pulls out his own shotgun, or shrugs it off with a live-and-let-live approach.

I’m not quite a libertarian. But then, the internet isn’t quite a lawless anarchy either.

Anything that is already illegal is also illegal on the internet, so you report it to the police (or whichever appropriate authority for your issue). Prosecutions happen all the time, but the prosecution of such crimes is somewhat below 100% successful response. (Also true for petty theft or home invasion.) But technology has already been developed in response to the market—people who don’t want the filth bombardment can use filters to keep certain sites or types of images from being allowed onto their devices. Same for pop-up ads—just adjust your settings. As for those emails from some guy in Nigeria needing money, or your good friends on a trip to Europe and suddenly in need of funds (even though you know they’re in town, plus they’re not close enough friends for you to be their emergency contact)—you block those as junk mail, and delete without opening any that get through.

If you’re defrauded in a purchase (and you’ve done due diligence by being careful who you’re dealing with and how they handle your personal and financial information), then you have some recourse through your credit card company, as well as the police.

We need constant vigilance. But we do a better job when it’s personal to us than a distant uninvolved bureaucrat would do.

The libertarian-like internet world can be understood on the Spherical Model. The freedom and level of interest are personal, where appropriate. And the free enterprise shows how prosperous such a world can be without some controlling authority limiting the market. The good is what you get in the northern hemisphere of the model (and arguably the western local control quadrant—although appropriate level is necessary for anywhere in the northern hemisphere). But the bad is what you get in the southern hemisphere, southwest quadrant.

Almost all of the bad has to do with civilization issues. Pornography is savage. Fraud is savage. Theft is savage. Anything else is a result of people choosing to do ugly harmful things, for money or just for fun.

I’m in favor of allowing everyone to limit the savagery in their lives. And better law enforcement would be appreciated. Live-and-let-live won’t do when drug deals are taking place in the schoolyard down the street (been there, seen that) or when the worst filth is aimed toward family members in my home.

In an optimistic civilized world, those wanting to protect themselves from pornography would so greatly eclipse the willing consumers that the market would cause that plague to disappear. Until that happens, though, we do need personal, constant vigilance—combined with better technology as more of us show the demand for protecting ourselves in our online world.

Of course we need government for legal protections—as we do now. What we absolutely do not need is another bureaucracy tasked with deciding who gets what service, at what cost, limiting innovation and progress. We don’t need some bureaucracy deciding what can and cannot be said—for example, on this website. Is it fair that I only express my own opinion instead of the opposing viewpoint? What if the government decides I’m not fair? Or decides I’m so wrong that such ideas should not be expressed?

The internet isn’t broken. Government’s offer to “fix” it is a thinly veiled grab for control over a thus-far free world.

Free and Open Internet

In dictionary world, like the one our founders lived in, the word “regulation” means to make regular—to make sure something can happen regularly, without blocks or interference. That’s what the founders meant by regulating interstate commerce.

But in today’s government, regulation means something else: governmental power to decide when, how, and whether something can happen. It’s arguable that all government regulation prevents, rather than provides, regularity of something happening.

So, when the president announces the need for a brand new public utility, we know it is about government interfering and controlling what is already happening. This week, the president’s speech on net neutrality gives us an opportunity to compare what he says with what will actually happen if his plan is put in place.

Here is the transcript of the minute-and-44-second announcement. I’ve highlighted portions that set my teeth on edge:

Ever since the Internet was created, it’s been organized around basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom. There’re no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There’re no toll roads on the information superhighway. This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the internet and given innovators the chance to thrive.

Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the internet as we know it. That’s why I’m laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open. And that’s why I’m urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone. They should make it clear that, whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming services you can use. And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors.

To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to put these under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. But the public has already commented nearly 4 million times, asking the FCC to make sure consumers, not the cable company, gets to decide which sites they use.

Americans are making their voices heard, and standing up for the principles that make the Internet a powerful force for change. As long as I’m president, that’s what I’ll be fighting for too.

 There’s a lot of language manipulation going on here. The first paragraph is basically a fact, and a principle we all agree on.

The second paragraph introduces a crisis: the imminent abandonment of the principle of open internet that we agree on. Where is the threat coming from? He doesn’t say.

I did some research. It’s complicated. It has something to do with the blurring of separation between mobile internet access and the more literal connection of an at-home internet connection. It also has to do with some services, such as Netflix, wanting faster access, so as to provide customers the faster downloads they want.

The claim is that any differentiation is wrong; Netflix, for example, shouldn’t be able to pay for higher streaming speeds, because that would be a disadvantage to those not paying for those faster speeds. And there’s a proposed fear (not really exemplified so far in real life) in which a cable company might decide not to stream one source as fast as it streams another, which might disadvantage certain companies.

So, up until now the internet has been open and innovative—without government regulation to speak of. The Internet is something like the oil boom in North Dakota—succeeding on private land, because government disallowed drilling on public land but couldn’t control private land drilling. (The president claimed the oil boom as a hallmark accomplishment of his presidency, nevertheless.) The Internet is worldwide, open, and free. We pay entrepreneurial companies to give us better and faster—and moving toward less expensive—access to it. All of this has taken place in a free market, not because of government encouragement or subsidy. Government should get credit for nothing except so far staying out of the way of this example of the free market.

So one could assume that, if there is a threat to what we want—if a company limits our service—we will look elsewhere in the market for alternatives. For example, in rural areas, where a cable company might try to control access, there would be a ready market for satellite services. The market has a way of working things out.

But the president is claiming that there’s a public outcry. Four million requests to the FCC for net neutrality. First, the number, as of mid-September was 3.7 million opinions. That’s around 1% of the population. Not all were in favor, but a vast majority were. But, in the election we just had, did it come up anywhere? Was that on the mind of the public? Did a single official get elected because of his/her position in favor of getting government to insert itself in controlling the Internet?

There’s a difference between being in favor of a free and open internet and being in favor of a new regulatory agency, or relabeling the internet as a public utility that the government can control.

Let’s explain it in terms of a highway, since “information superhighway” is a term the president used. So, we have a freeway, with multiple lanes. No one is limiting you, as a driver, to only certain lanes. But someone starts a fear campaign saying, “Red cars could get special treatment; someone could step in and make a rule that only red cars can drive in the left lane, and they can go ten miles an hour faster than the other lanes. That’s not fair. We need a new government agency to step in and make sure no one can set up these special red-car lanes. We need lane neutrality!”

Our roads are free and open now. If someone tried to set up special lanes, without making a case that the market agrees to, the market would naturally find better ways. Setting up a new agency wouldn’t improve things for us; it would, instead, give authority to some agency to determine how the lanes are used. And if you give that authority away, you place the choice on how the lanes will be used in the hands of that agency. You do the exact opposite of protect your free lane use.

There’s a further question about the public outcry for “net neutrality.” A look under the surface is likely to show that it’s the bigger companies, claiming they’re thinking of the little guy, while setting up regulations that will limit entry by new businesses—in other words, will limit their competition.

We have seen this before. I heard Milton Friedman say this in a speech in 1980:

[Businesses] aren’t promoting free enterprise when they ask for handouts and regulations and controls to avoid competition.

The two greatest enemies of free society are intellectuals and businessmen—for opposite reasons. Intellectuals want freedom for themselves but no one else. Businessmen want free enterprise for everyone else, but special consideration for themselves.

And, just an aside, is anyone else bothered that the president is pushing this proposal and then stepping back and saying, since the FCC is an independent agency (i.e., under the executive branch over which he presides), the decision of whether to interfere with our free and open Internet is already in their hands?

If we turn to the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, we can see where a policy will lead. Government must be limited to the proper role of government, as listed in the preamble to the Constitution:

·         Establish Justice

·         Insure domestic Tranquility

·         Provide for the common defence

·         Promote the general Welfare

·         Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

There’s nothing in there that says, “When a new technology gets to a point that we all want it, the government should step in and make sure everyone gets it, and makes sure it gets offered in exactly the same quality to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.”

If people use the technology to harm one another, steal another’s property, or in any way endanger life, liberty, or property, then the justice role of government is already in place. If government does anything beyond its proper role, it will cause unintended consequences. Always.

But there’s something we can predict about those unintended consequences: they will be approximately the exact opposite of the purported purpose of the government interference.

So, in this case, we can agree we like having a free and open internet, and we want that to continue. If we have government step in with the claim that we can’t have a free and open internet without it, we can be certain the interference will mean less freedom, less openness, less innovation. There will likely be favoritism to particular businesses or points of view—control a tyrannical government would be especially gleeful to grab.

Let There Be Light Freedom

Regulation is one of those words that have changed through misuse. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it meant “to allow to be regular, to be expected.” That was what it meant in reference to a well-regulated militia and regulating commerce between the states.

Now it means something more like “rules imposed through government coercion.” I’m against that. I grow more against it with further examination. Even well-meaning regulations (and aren’t they all?) that do not cross my personal choice tend to decay overall freedom (for example, because I don’t smoke, I am not much affected by regulations against smoking).

Here are the facts about today’s regulations:

·         They exceed the proper role of government.

·         Everything that exceeds the proper role of government causes negative, unforeseen consequences.

·         The negative consequences of government regulation almost always result in the exact opposite of the stated purposes of the regulation.

So, whatever your opinion about the utility and value of certain types of light bulbs, government coercion is wrong.

I’m mentioning this now, because January 1, 2014, marked the latest (final?) phase in the imposition of the light bulb control regulation that was signed into law in 2007. You may or may not have already realized you can no longer buy incandescent bulbs 75 watts or larger. The 1-1-2014 phase now includes 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs, the ones you’re most likely to be using around your home.

Soon to be anachronistic incandescent bulb
photo by James Bowe

Technically, you as a consumer are not breaking any laws by buying or using the banned bulbs. So if you Google one of those “myths about light bulbs” articles, you will be told that’s just overreaction by ranting bloggers such as myself. However, they are stopping the manufacture and importation of the banned bulbs. So, you can buy still buy them—as long as the supply lasts, or for about six more months, according to Home Depot, which stockpiled supply more than most. But once the supply runs out, the de facto result is that you as a consumer no longer have the option to buy the cheap, incandescent bulbs you’ve been using all your life.

There are alternatives—expensive ones, but possibly cost-effective, if the bulbs last longer and use less energy. That’s the stated purpose. (To those who accuse me of being a ranting blogger, I would like to calmly point out that the government’s stated purpose includes the insistence that my personal use of incandescent bulbs has a direct effect on the temperature of the planet and the viability of various faraway species like polar bears, whose numbers are climbing. Just saying.)

It doesn’t matter whether alternatives are superior. What matters is—it is not the government’s prerogative to make my consumer choices for me. The light bulb legislation is a classic case study.

Incandescent bulbs are cheap, reliable, and useful. They create a warm glow, and pleasant color. But they are not particularly efficient. The frequently stated percentage is that 90% of the energy is wasted while the useful 10% creates light. Wasted is a relative term, however. The other 90% creates mostly heat. If you had an Easy-Bake Oven as a kid (I did), you can see that was a good thing. Light bulb heat is also useful in incubators for hatching chicks and for some indoor gardening. It’s not a terrible thing in a home otherwise requiring energy for heat.

Are those uses significant enough to override the government mandate? Yes, actually.

Ask the question another way: Is the government’s purpose for controlling purchasing decisions important enough to override valid consumer needs/demands? There shouldn’t have to be a weighing on a scale. As soon as something is placed on the consumer demand side, it outweighs the invalid government purpose—unless the government purpose is rationally recognized as assuring protection of our rights to life, liberty, and property.

I’m trying to connect the dots for government’s role in deciding which current science to honor as sacrosanct enough to require sacrifices from the citizenry. I can’t do it. (Maybe especially when it’s been 23 degrees this week—in subtropical Houston! I know that doesn’t qualify for sympathy from the rest of you suffering from what’s being called the “polar vortex.”)

What I see is that, compared to me, government is really bad at making decisions about what I should purchase. I’m all for innovations, some of which we’re seeing with LED and halogen bulbs. (Here is a good comparison article.) Some of these are still very expensive, but the market, not government coercion, is the best path to innovation and affordability. And way too much of the government coercion has steered us toward compact fluorescent bulbs.

Here’s what I have against fluorescent light bulbs:

·        They’re ugly. The twisty, neon-looking knot is not esthetically pleasing. The light emitted is unpleasant—that’s one of the reasons I hate shopping, because everything looks ugly when the lighting makes your skin look a harsh greenish-purple. I can avoid shopping in fluorescent-lit department stores most of the time, but I can’t avoid my home. I don’t want that unpleasantness surrounding me in my nesting place.

·        They hum. The hum isn’t noticeable to everyone, but it’s enough to be distracting—especially when constant—with some highly sensitive individuals. It’s enough to cause distraction for young kids in schools, interfering with their learning. (Sometimes they get misdiagnosed as ADD and get medicated, when all they really needed was separation from the ugly humming lights.) In adults the hum leads to migraines. The humming is worse if you try to use a dimmer switch. With improved technology, you can now mitigate the dimmer switch hum—if you replace your switch and pay a lot more for the bulbs.

·        They’re expensive. Supposedly they last longer. Unless they’re not upright. Hmm. I have a couple of lamps that use upright bulbs; all the rest of the bulbs in my house are horizontal or slanted downward from ceiling fixtures. Even the porch light, which conceivably could tolerate a squiggly fluorescent bulb, is upside down. So, for me, the costs would not be mitigated by longer lasting bulbs.

But here is the big, main problem: they are dangerous hazardous waste when broken. Sometimes the argument is about how small the effect of mercury would be in the environment in total, compared to the current mercury production from coal-based electricity use. But my concern is about the inevitable breakage in my home. I couldn’t count the number of incandescent bulbs we’ve broken over the years. There was a time, when the boys used to play full-court basketball in our 8-foot-high family room, and the light fixtures were a constant casualty. Cleaning up an incandescent bulb is a relatively small thing: pick up the large glass pieces, vacuum and/or wipe up the rest. Done.

Broken CFL
photo from epa.gov

Compare the clean-up instructions for fluorescents (you can read the actual government instructions here; my abbreviated and only slightly embellished version is below):

1.      Evacuate all living beings, except yourself, whom you have self-appointed as expendable.

2.      Open windows and doors, and then evacuate yourself for 5-10 minutes.

3.      On your way out, shut off central air system. Leave it off for several hours.

4.      While you’re out of the contaminated area, collect the following supplies (which hopefully are not located in the contaminated area):

a.       Cardstock, duck tape, wet wipes, jar with lid or Ziploc bag in which to seal hazardous waste.

b.      Hazmat suit including disposable gloves.

5.      Remove all traces of debris, using your listed supplies, and seal debris and clean-up supplies in container that you will transport to containment facility, so it doesn’t continue to contaminate your home with mercury vapor.

6.      If area is carpeted, follow the clean-up procedure by vacuuming, carefully, with windows still open, and immediately dispose of vacuum cleaner bag as hazardous waste. Follow this procedure (including turning off air system, opening windows, and disposing of hazardous waste vacuum cleaner bag) when vacuuming this area over the next several months.

So, let me explain about Houston. No sane person opens the windows and turns off the air between April and November (pretty much never during the other months either). The humidity is overpowering; a typical day is over 90% humidity. It’s much cheaper to maintain indoor temperature and humidity than to spend hours overtaxing the system to recover non-liquid air. So a single broken bulb is going to wipe out the annual energy savings of the stupid bulbs. (Not to mention that a single presidential vacation easily wipes out the savings of the bulb switchover for a typical small city.)

And apparently the government, so concerned about my safety that it can’t allow me to use incandescent bulbs that might contribute in some incalculable way to the fragility of the planet, is perfectly fine with my being forced to use mercury vapor in my home that I must clean up myself following inevitable breakage—just follow the easy clean-up steps and then simply plan to die early.

We can count on government to make personal consumer choices badly. So, while this law is headache-inducing on that level, what is more difficult to understand is how we—the American people, with liberties guaranteed in our Constitution—have elected officials who pushed this through in the first place and then failed to repeal it before it took effect.

Failing a full repeal, I request (demand) a personal exemption.