Protectionism Doen't Work

1. The protectionist wants us all to be "safe" - at any cost. He has forced manufacturers to make power lawnmowers so safe that retarded children (?) can use them without hurting themselves. The only problem is that they no longer cut grass unless the owner spends an hour or two with a hammer, chisel, and hack saw removing fifty dollars-worth of unnecessary mandatory safety equipment, invalidating his warranty in the process. All of this, multiplied by millions of lawnmowers, is only a minor consideration to be sure, now that we are all "safe."

2. In a perfectly safe society we would all be legally required to remain in bed while being fed intravenously by government, because if we got up and went outside we might "hurt" ourselves. If the world is made perfectly safe, so that the individual never experiences any of the consequences of his own actions, then natural selection is blocked and evolution stops.

3. The next time that you are awakened at two in the morning and can't get back to sleep because of the loud beeping two miles away when the snow plow backs up, just fall upon your knees and give thanks for the fact that the great legions of blind people out walking in the blizzard are "safe."

4. The protectionist wants government to compel hotel owners everywhere to change their hot and cold water faucets to mixing valves so that nobody can get scalded. Any plumber will tell you that on most hot water supply heaters there is one control that will regulate hot water temperature to all the faucets. Is there anywhere a hotel where the water is hot enough to get even a decent shave, let alone to scald protectionists? Underlying all this "concern" for peoples' safety, of course, is the desire to increase deficit spending to fund periodic government inspections of hotels. Recent history has shown us that it's always best whenever possible to view human interactions as contracts between individuals. If we think of the right not to be scalded while showering, as an implied warrantee granted by hotel owners, then someone who is scalded can simply sue for damages. This provides the hotel owner with a natural free market incentive to make the proper temperature adjustments. No government deficit spending needed here.

5. Countries with no highway speed limits have fewer accidents because the expectation of higher impact on collision increases caution. We can think of bad accidents as contractual relationships between skilled drivers who accept the increased risk of greater speed, and inept individuals who are weeded out by their own stupidity. Those who have to clean up afterwards are paid for what they do, so who can logically object? We understand that in this example that "fast" does not mean reckless. Those who object here are the lazy people who don't want the added responsibility of extra caution which sometimes comes with increased individual liberty.

6. Statistics are worthwhile only when they serve truth, not when they allow mediocrity to fester at the expense of excellence. The less time one spends on mundane activities, like going from one place to another, the higher will be this individual's evolutionary expression. Those who attempt to justify low arbitrary speed limits always point to the number of lives saved. Some have even advocated banning automobiles altogether so that no lives will be lost. None have yet computed the total number of man-hours lost with lower speed limits because of individuals having to take longer going from one place to another. This lost time is also lost life, because time is what life is made up of. The amount and quality of this life certainly exceeds that of the few inept sluggards who are culled naturally by an environment with higher risks.

"High performance lifestyles needn't be hampered by low performance thinking" proclaims Dirk the Sun Warrior robustly, as he masterfully wheels his 911 Porsche through the treacherous High Kancamagus on the way to Mount Cranmore for a splendid day of skiing.

7. Foreign business ownership should never be allowed in any country. Items offered in world markets should be produced solely within each country by the citizens of that country. No nation, however, should try to dictate product choice to the buyer. Some claim to be more patriotic because they advocate forced buyer choice. They feel that the worker is more important than the consumer, but the consumer is usually also a worker, and has the right to buy the best product, at the best price he can get, in a competitive free world market. Good intentions are praiseworthy, but people should read first, then advocate workable rather than destructive policies. Notice how many of these individuals never want to get rid of government handouts which necessitate fiat currency, causing the economic upheaval and trade deficits which hurt workers in the first place.

8. In business, simple dishonesty and the desire for government enforced monopoly often hides behind high sounding rhetoric about "protecting the public." A good example is the real estate business. Years ago any reasonably intelligent person could broker a real estate transaction without any special training at all. Even now attorneys often handle the legalities. Originally the requirement for a license was merely a way of collecting a user fee so that brokers as a group would justly pay the court costs for the disproportionate amount of litigation which accrues to real estate practice. Then came the rise of certain "professional" organizations comprised of well-established prosperous brokers. First they established special codes of "ethics" in order to seem very moral and public spirited. Next we see them offering their support to politicians who then sponsor legislation enacting strict licensing requirements with ridiculously difficult exams to "protect the public from curbstone brokers" or to protect "leading citizens from unfair outside competition." These exams of course, did not apply retroactively to those already licensed. Some will argue that the increasing complexity of laws renders necessary a higher degree of training for brokers. In actuality this very complexity itself only represents other unjust interferences by government in parallel areas of human endeavor. It is simply not a legitimate function of government in a free society to regulate business in any way other than to outlaw and prosecute clearly fraudulent practices.

9. There has been a lot of phony talk recently about tobacco use. We have always known that nicotine is addictive. It is the only reason people smoke. Since tars do not enhance the pleasure given by nicotine, but are also very unhealthful, then obviously the most "safe" cigarette would be a high nicotine, low tar cigarette, any way that this can be produced. For tobacco companies to be put on the defensive about all this is just another way that government servants of international finance seek to increase deficit spending for government regulation of individual behavior. The only just ban on smoking would be indoors in all public places, at the base of occupied buildings, near gas pumps, around oil refineries, etc.

10. What smart people should not do, and what government should outlaw, are two very different things. It is not a legitimate function of government in a free society to dictate to anybody about what they can ingest into their own body. The one exception would be any substance taken in any amount expected from experience to always make the user likely to endanger others. There are very few such substances. All potentially unhealthful products of course, should proclaim themselves with proper labels.

11. A person cannot effectively love others if he does not first love himself. Using government coercion to keep adults from reaping the just consequences of their own weakness is a direct and unforgivable interference with evolutionary destiny because it interferes with natural selection. It is better to let these weak elements destroy themselves any way they can, so that those left will be the stronger, more rational people truly capable of loving both themselves and others.