Raw Milk or Raw Deal?

There was legislation recently introduced in Congress to lift a ban on raw milk in being traded through interstate commerce.  The story of raw milk is really one that epitomizes what has happened to our country.
First, you will notice that legislation is being introduced.  Why isn’t there legislation to repeal?  Normally I would be critical of legislation that seeks to add a law instead of repealing, but in this case, there isn’t really a law to repeal, except perhaps removing all funding from the FDA.
There is no federal legislation banning raw milk, but the Food and Drug Administration took it upon itself to prosecute farmers for selling their milk raw, as opposed to pasteurized milk.
This is one of the major problems that we face from Washington DC.  Most of the rules and regulations that exist are not passed directly by your so-called representatives.  Instead, Congress delegates authority to these bureaucratic agencies to make up their own rules.  Even Obamacare did this in delegating broad powers to the Department of Health and Human Services.
A second interesting thing about raw milk is that there are varying laws in the 50 different states, most of which are bad for liberty.  But it is usually better to have a bad local law than any federal law.  At least laws made at the state and local level are a little easier to change and at least there remains some options for those living there.
In the example of raw milk, the bad regulations from the FDA just exacerbate the problems created by the states.  If all federal rules and regulations are repealed, then at least consumers would have some choices, even faced with strict state laws.
A third thing to note about the quasi ban on raw milk is that it is just another example of protectionism.  It is done in the name of consumer safety, while it is really being done for the lobbyists and the big companies and the rich farmers.  It is usually the local family farm that will sell raw milk and get harmed by such legislation.
Once again, the rich get richer, but this isn’t a case of getting richer by meeting consumer demand.  It is getting richer by using the force of government to outlaw competition.
The last important point regarding raw milk is how it seems that the government actually wants people to be unhealthy.  This may sound cynical, but it seems that government will often promote things that aren’t healthy and run campaigns against things that actually are.  Aside from a few obvious things like not smoking and avoiding processed foods, the government will actually give advice that is the opposite of what you should be doing.
There is much debate about raw milk, but it tends to be politicians and industry protectionists who promote the supposed dangers of raw milk.  If you ask the average guy on the street, he probably won’t know much about raw milk.
But there is another side to the story.  While the anti-raw milk people claim that pasteurization is needed to kill the bacteria, it is the bacteria that some health advocates seek.
There are good bacteria and bad bacteria and human beings need lots of good bacteria in their gut.  Raw milk is a source of this, along with other nutrients.  It is the same reason that it is beneficial for babies to breastfeed.
While the anti-raw milk crowd can point to limited cases where people got sick from drinking mishandled raw milk, you can point this out in any industry.  There are people who get sick from eating bad meat all the time.  It doesn’t mean we ban the sale of meat.
Even if you disagree on the potential health benefits of raw milk, this is an issue of liberty.  If some people want to voluntarily make the choice of drinking raw milk, you should not use the force of government to prevent them from doing so.
We all have choices in life to make and they usually involve some level of risk and benefit.  We should not need permission from the government.
Free raw milk!

Is This Capitalism or Cronyism?

While the federal government usually gets most of the attention when it comes to lobbying and doling out favors to big corporations, it happens just as much with state and local governments.
It was recently reported that Motorola controls about 80% of the emergency telecommunications in the U.S.  There are cities and states across the country handing out noncompetitive contracts to the company.
Of course, it is not surprising that Motorola spends millions of dollars on lobbying, along with donations to various groups associated with police and firefighters, as well as, of course, politicians.
The so-called left in this country likes to rail against big business.  Think about the Occupy Wall Street group.  In some ways, they have a point.  But they are trying to blame capitalism when what we have isn’t capitalism.  It is cronyism.  In some ways, it is the economic system of fascism.  It is an alliance between big government and big business.
In a capitalist society, the government wouldn’t be doling out favors to big business.  In a true capitalist system, the government would be there to protect people and their property from encroachment and to enforce contracts.  In our current world, the government instead takes people’s property and hands it out to those with political connections, while throwing a few scraps back at the lower and middle classes.
It is ironic that some people justify government regulations and interference in the marketplace because they say that we need protection from big business.  But consumers can protect themselves from big business by refusing to buy their products in a free market, if they don’t like the products or they are too expensive.
Instead, government interference gives us what we have today.  It ensures the success of big business by forcing us to buy things (via taxation) that we wouldn’t otherwise purchase.  Government interference also tends to set up rules and regulations that make it impossible for the little guy to compete.
We also hear about the threat of monopolies if the government didn’t step in and regulate and control the business environment.  Yet, it is the government that is creating the monopolies where we have no choice in the matter.  As mentioned, Motorola has 80% of the market in this one category because of government contracts at various levels.
A company that obtains an 80% market share in a truly free market would really have to deliver a superior product at a superior price.  Even giant companies such as Walmart cannot control 80% of the market.  There is almost always competition.  And if Walmart did achieve this without government help, then it would be a result of delivering consumers what they want at low prices.
Motorola is just one example of a big company that relies on government for its business instead of relying strictly on its innovation and quality.  I guess you could say that they rely on their marketing, but it is marketing by lining the pockets of politicians to use your tax money to buy its products.  In this case, the company is not profitable because of consumers voluntarily purchasing its products.

Secession is in the Air

With Crimea breaking away from Ukraine and joining Russia, the topic of secession is becoming more popular, with strong opinions both for and against.
The situation in Crimea is a little different because the people of the region were actually voting to join another country instead of breaking away on its own.  This may seem odd to us, especially when it is Russia they are joining, but we do have to consider the circumstances.
That region is made up of people who consider themselves Russian.  They speak the language and probably share more of the views of the Russian people.  We must also consider that life in Ukraine is what we would consider horrific.  When people in Crimea see higher living standards in Russia, it is natural for them to want change and to want to share in those higher living standards.
Some critics say that the election was not valid because there was pressure on the people to vote to breakaway and join Russia.  This may or may not be true, but it is hard to deny that a large majority of the people there favor a reunion with Russia.
Regardless of the situation in Crimea, how should a strong advocate of liberty deal with the topic of secession?
Unfortunately, the topic of secession in the U.S. tends to get associated with the Civil War, which wasn’t really a civil war.  Because the southern states allowed slavery and slavery ended up being abolished at the end of the war, the idea of secession is sometimes tied to slavery.  The critics of secession have exploited this association by screaming racism anytime someone mentions the word secession.
Of course, this is ridiculous and it should not dissuade us from speaking about the topic.  Just because the southern states had slavery and they also tried to secede, it doesn’t automatically make secession bad.
If there is a mass murderer who also enjoys eating pie, does that prevent us from ever enjoying pie again?  Does anyone who eats pie automatically get labeled a sympathizer of mass murder?  This just shows the ridiculous notion of how anyone advocating secession is advocating slavery or racism.  It is just a smear tactic of the critics.
It is also important to point out that anyone who is against secession must also be against the United States.  The Revolutionary War was a war of secession.  The American colonies were seceding from Britain.  The Declaration of Independence is just that.  It is a declaration of secession.
Some will say there is a difference because Britain was ruled by a king, whereas we live in a democracy today (although it is supposed to be a constitutional republic).  But then how can an advocate of democracy deny the right of a group of people to secede if that is what the majority favors?
As a libertarian, I will always recognize that secession should be allowed and it is usually good for liberty.  Generally speaking, the smaller the region, the better it is for liberty.  It is actually smaller countries such as Switzerland and Hong Kong that tend to have more liberty.
It is also important that when there are smaller countries, there are more choices and there is more competition.  This can actually constrain governments to a certain degree.  While the U.S. has become quite centralized, you can still see a little bit of competition between state governments.  High tax states such as Illinois and California are finding that if they make things bad enough, some people will actually pick up and move somewhere else such as Texas or New Hampshire where taxes are less burdensome.
With that said, liberty advocates should remain consistent and still not oppose secession if it is coming from an area that does not reflect their views.  For example, there are some leftists in Vermont who would like to secede from the U.S.  While I don’t share their vision on some things, particularly on economic issues, I will not oppose any attempts of secession there.  If they want to breakaway and have their own little democratic welfare state, then it is better for it to happen in a small region where people can easily move away.
I don’t see secession happening any time soon in the U.S.  There are cultural and economic reasons for this.  But I think we should not be afraid to discuss the topic.  Smaller regions controlled by a government tend to favor liberty in the long run.

The Government That We Pay For

Many people think that we don’t get the government that we pay for.  This is probably true in most cases, but it could be far worse.  We could actually get all of the government that we are forced to pay for.
There was a recent story out of Rockford, Illinois in which the city government ordered a church to stop providing help for the homeless.  The church was allowing homeless people to take shelter from the bitter cold outside.
The caring city government shut this down due to zoning issues and for violating the fire safety code.
So the city government, in all of its wisdom, wanted to keep people safe from a potential hazardous situation.  The caring bureaucrats did not want a fire safety hazard.  Even if the odds of having a fire are less than 1%, we can’t be too cautious.
Therefore, to make sure nobody gets hurt, the city government thought it would be better to throw the homeless people back out on to the street in freezing temperatures.  Remember, safety first.
While this is a more blatant example of government incompetence, or perhaps government cruelty, this isn’t exactly an isolated incident either.
When thousands of new laws and regulations are passed every year – at the federal, state, and local levels – it is inevitable that some of them are going to have really bad consequences.  Unfortunately, it is not usually the bureaucrats who implement and enforce the laws who suffer the bad consequences.
It is also inevitable that some bureaucrat is going to interpret some statute in a way that it was never intended.  It is inevitable that someone is going to enforce a statute that is against all common sense and human decency.
In this sense, I am really glad that we don’t get all of the government that we are forced to pay for.  Imagine if all laws and regulations were enforced like this one.  It probably wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that we would live in an almost completely totalitarian society.
There are many people who will complain about government, but say that government needs to be more efficient.  When Mitt Romney was campaigning for the presidency, he said he wanted to run the government more like a business.
But we should be careful in what we ask for.  Do we really want the government running more efficiently?  Can the government really operate like a business?  Businesses usually get money by pleasing customers, not by forcing people to pay for something that they don’t want.
I understand the sentiment in wanting government efficiency.  People don’t want their tax money wasted.  But you can’t expect it to be put to good use very often when you are forced to pay taxes, especially in large amounts.
Do you want a more efficient NSA that can track everything Americans say and do?
Do you want a more efficient IRS in making sure that everyone is audited?
Do you want a more efficient education system where children are only taught the materials deemed proper by the state?
Do you want more efficient city governments like that in Rockford, Illinois that makes sure no one is in violation of zoning laws and fire safety standards?
Government efficiency should not be a goal for liberty lovers.  Reducing government power should be a goal.

The Obamacare Fun Continues

While Obamacare is causing great harm to most Americans, I still find it entertaining to a degree.  This is a classic government program in that it is doing the exact opposite of its stated intent – in this case, providing affordable health insurance.  It differs from most other government programs in that people are experiencing the pain right away and know where to place the blame.
Some health industry officials are now saying that the premiums related to Obamacare could double in some parts of the country.  The Affordable Care Act should have been called the Unaffordable Care Act.
While the dysfunctional website was getting all of the attention back in October and November, it was inevitable that bigger problems lay ahead.  Then millions of people were receiving cancellation notices from the insurance companies, completely contradicting Obama’s original claims that if you like your current plan, you can keep it.
The next major problem, and probably the biggest problem, is the massive premium increases.  This includes health insurance premiums for people who already have plans through their employer.  It isn’t just people signing up for Obamacare.
But this problem is a lot different.  It isn’t like the website that was fixable.  This problem isn’t going to go away.  People will either have to forego having health insurance or else they will see the huge premium expense each month.  In addition, for those signing up for high-deductible plans, they will also get sticker shock the first time they have some kind of a medical emergency.
To top this off, Obama said in an interview that the American people just need to prioritize when it comes to things like having a cell phone.  Aside from the fact that a monthly cell phone payment is not going to cover the cost of health insurance for most people, this statement is quite amusing from someone taking million dollar vacations on the taxpayer dime.
This is going to spell major trouble for the Democrats in the mid-term elections this November.  This is one of those rare pieces of legislation that split almost unanimously along party lines.
Generally speaking, I think most Republicans are more free market oriented than Democrats.  But this doesn’t always translate into good Republican politicians, even on domestic economic issues.  There are some who probably go to Washington DC with good intentions, but those good intentions are quickly destroyed by the lust of power.
But in the case of Obamacare, it worked out for Republicans in their opposition.  Most Republicans in DC don’t really favor the free market to a strong degree and this includes the area of medical care and insurance.  But while they don’t offer much in the way of alternatives, it is universal opposition to Obamacare by the Republicans at this point.
Politicians will say that they don’t want to run a negative campaign and that they want to present their own positive agenda.  But the reality is that negative campaigns can win elections, particularly if you strike at a fear or a hot spot of voters.  It will be easy for Republicans to campaign against Obamacare and you will be surprised how many people respond.
It is not that most voters like the Republican candidates, but some voters will be absolutely furious at the Democrats for passing Obamacare.
While the large premiums (and continuing to rise) will be really harmful to the average American, it will be the gift that keeps on giving, politically speaking, at least for the Republicans.
People get mad about a lot of things politically, but they also have short memories.  By the time the election comes around, most of it is forgotten.  But the American people will be continually reminded every month of how much a disaster Obamacare is when they have to pay for it.
The whole healthcare and insurance system was a disaster when Obama entered office.  But Obamacare has made it far worse and that is what people will blame, with the exception of a few loyal Democrats.
There will be a push for a full government takeover of the medical industry.  It may or may not work.  But right now, Obamacare is not well liked and it is only going to get worse, even with Obama arbitrarily changing the law by himself.
As I continue to say, the Republicans are not going to defeat Obamacare.  Obamacare is going to defeat Obamacare.  It is already happening.

The Legacy of Harry Browne

2 Comments

It is hard to believe, but this world has been without Harry Browne for over 8 years now.  He passed away on March 1, 2006.  While he is no longer physically with us, he did leave quite a legacy with his thoughts and ideas.  While most Harry Browne material will be found in written form in books and articles, there are also some great speeches and radio shows that he did.

Harry Browne, while perhaps most famous as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, was far more than a politician.  In fact, I would say that he was the anti-politician.  But his talents were not just in politics and libertarianism.  He became somewhat known in the early 1970’s for his investment advice.  He also wrote How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, which was more of a self-help book.  If you’ve never read it, you may want to see if you can pick up a used copy somewhere.

I find it important to bring up Harry Browne’s name every once in a while.  I probably refer to him the most in investing because I am a big advocate of the permanent portfolio as he described in his book Fail-Safe Investing.  But while he was influential to me in the investment world, he also had a great impact on shaping me as a libertarian, especially in matters of foreign policy.

It is important for me to let others know about Harry Browne because a lot of new people to the libertarian community are not familiar with him, or at least not much.  They may know his name and they may know that he was on the LP ticket, but they haven’t read his material.

The libertarian movement has exploded since 2007 when Ron Paul first ran as a Republican in the presidential primaries.  Ron Paul woke up a small (but significant) minority of people that we didn’t really know existed.  Or maybe they didn’t exist but only found themselves by listening to Ron Paul.  I think the turning point was when Ron Paul was criticized by Rudy Giuliani for his remarks on foreign policy and 9/11 during a debate.

While the Ron Paul followers are a diverse group, it is safe to say that the majority of them are new to the libertarian movement (within the last 7 years) and they are relatively young (under 30).  Many of these people are really solid libertarians, probably because they have listened to Ron Paul.  But they are reading other works such as Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, and Peter Schiff, just to name a few.  They may also be reading people who are no longer living, such as Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Unfortunately, I don’t think a great deal of the Ron Paul followers today are reading Harry Browne.  That is why I think it is important to mention his name.  He influenced quite a few people in his lifetime and I think libertarians today who are unfamiliar with him would benefit greatly in reading some of his work.

Harry Browne had a way of not coming across too radical, while still maintaining a radical position, in a good way.  He never offered a government solution to a problem.  One of his books is titled Why Government Doesn’t Work.

But Harry Browne also offered a very positive message.  I had the pleasure of meeting him in 2004 and he gave a speech on the prospects for liberty in the future.  He said that most libertarians didn’t understand that despite everything seemingly working against us, that we had human nature on our side.  He said that most people generally want to be free to make their own decisions.

He was very positive and believed that we can change the world.  You have to realize that this was before the surge of libertarianism that happened starting in 2007 with Ron Paul’s campaign.  If Harry Browne were around today, I think he would be pleasantly surprised at how popular libertarianism has become, but not shocked either.

He always believed in education and that is why he ran for president.  He had no illusions of winning and he even said so during his campaigns.  He just wanted to teach others on the benefits of liberty.

If you haven’t read anything by Harry Browne, I urge you to do so.  Read some of his articles.  Even better, get one of his books.

Is Your Property Safe From the EPA?

There was a recent story about a family in Wyoming that is experiencing the ruthlessness of government bureaucrats the hard way.  The family built a pond on “their property” in 2012 and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is telling them it violates the Clean Water Act.
The government is claiming that the family is in violation of building a dam or creek without a permit, as well as claiming that contents from the family-built pond are running into other waterways.
The EPA is now threatening fines of up to $75,000 per day for the supposed violation.  That is not a misprint.  It isn’t $75 per day, which would seem harsh enough.  It is $75,000 per day, which is a completely ridiculous figure.  The family is refusing to pay.
Property Rights
There are so many questions that can be asked here, but the obvious one is in regards to property rights.  Why is the government allowed to tell others what they can and can’t do with their own property?
If government has any role to play (in a free and just society), it is only to protect property rights and enforce contracts.  In this case, not only is the government not protecting property rights, the government itself is violating the property rights.
Although this can be said about most things that government is involved in, this is a particularly egregious example, particularly when it comes down as so totalitarian.
If the property owners were polluting or infringing on other people’s property, then there would be a legitimate dispute.  But there would also be an actual victim, which would be the owner or owners of the property being infringed upon.  In this particular case in Wyoming, the EPA claims seem to be non-specific.
The next question is why the EPA has the power to simply dictate orders and fines people on demand.  Shouldn’t the Wyoming family at least have their day in court to show that their pond is on their property and not violating anyone else’s rights?
Government-Owned Land
A third question, that is perhaps related to this case, is why the government owns so much land.  Why are there vast areas, particularly in the west, that are fully owned and controlled by the government, particularly the federal government?
I suppose the answer to this question is because not many people strongly oppose it.  But this should really become more of an issue for liberty advocates.  When the government owns so much land, then it gives these bureaucrats more power and more excuses to control others.
There is no valid reason for the government to own vast amounts of land.  Even parks and forests can be owned by private individuals.  We have been trained to think that if it weren’t for the government, then there would be no beautiful parks or forests to visit.
In reality, land would be much better cared for in the hands of private owners.  It would be in their own interest to take care of the land.  That is why, when you see forest fires raging, it is usually on government-owned land that was not being take care of or watched over properly.
When property is taken out of the hands of government, then disputes are actually less likely to happen.  In this case of the Wyoming pond, another property owner could dispute an encroachment through the courts.  There would have to be an actual victim for there to be any dispute.
Property rights should be sacred in a free society.  The government should sell its vast amounts of land and the EPA should be shut down.

FOMC Statement – March 19, 2014

1 Comment

The FOMC released its latest statement on March 19, 2014.  The tapering has continued, with another reduction in monthly purchases of $10 billion.  Since the end of 2013, the FOMC has announced tapering 3 times in a row, going from asset purchases of $85 billion per month, now down to $55 billion per month.

Surprisingly, this is not what got the most news.  The media is instead focusing on the change in the FOMC statement regarding the federal funds rate.  Before, the FOMC had guidelines of likely keeping the federal funds rate where it is (targeted between 0% and .25%) as long as unemployment stayed above 6.5% and inflation expectations stayed at or below 2%.

The latest statement removed the 6.5% unemployment guideline.  When Janet Yellen was asked about this in her press conference, she indicated (unconvincingly) that the federal funds rate could go up as soon as 6 months after the end of the taper.  This sent markets down.

Peter Schiff is speculating that this 6.5% trigger was removed because the Fed is going to find excuses to delay raising rates.  Schiff says (correctly) that the unemployment rate has been drifting down in large part because people have stopped looking for jobs.

In this instance, I am taking an opposite view, speculating that the Fed may be concerned that the unemployment rate won’t fall below 6.5% and does not want to be bound by this guideline.  The Fed never said that it had to raise rates if unemployment fell below 6.5%, but only that it would not anticipate raising rates as long as it was above this mark.

Either way, I think everyone is focused on the wrong thing.  The federal funds rate doesn’t matter right now.  The thing that matters is the so-called quantitative easing and the tapering of it.

The Fed has inflated a lot since 2008, but there have also been periods of relative monetary stability.  It hasn’t made any difference in the federal funds rate, which is the overnight borrowing rate.  This is because the banks have piled up massive excess reserves and have little need for borrowing overnight funds to meet reserve requirements.  They are already way in excess of the reserve requirements and they have been since the end of 2008.

What is the Fed going to do to raise the federal funds rate?  It can’t control this with monetary policy right now, therefore it doesn’t have that great of an effect on us.  It can change the federal funds rate by dramatically increasing reserve requirements.  It can also change it by increasing the interest rate it pays for excess reserves, which is the reverse of what most people think.  But monetary policy is not going to change the federal funds rate as long as there are massive excess reserves in the banking system.

Let’s not lose focus.  The big news is the taper and whether the Yellen Fed will continue with it, even if the economy starts to show more signs of weakness.  Yellen is a Keynesian, but she is also a political figure.  Will she be able to continue tapering even if the stock market starts falling dramatically?  It hasn’t happened yet, but it will be entertaining to watch if and when it does.

Can the Government Now Give Us Overtime Pay?

Obama has decided, once again, that there is such a thing as a free lunch.  He is proposing new regulations that would mandate overtime pay for certain job classifications.  There are a lot of things wrong with this proposal, but unfortunately some Americans still believe in the dream of a government-provided free lunch.
First, aside from the merits or faults of the actual proposal, how is Obama going to enact these changes?  He needs the approval of Congress, right?
Actually, Obama is planning to make this change through the Department of Labor.  He wants to avoid the mess of actually getting approval from your so-called representatives.
This is one of the major problems with Washington DC.  Congress will pass a law that delegates power to the executive branch, where the president then delegates that power to one of the bureaucracies, such as the Department of Labor.
It is little realized that most of the laws and regulations that we are subjected to are not actually written and voted on by Congress.  The thousands of new pages of laws and regulations that go into effect each year are written and implemented outside of Congress.
As a side note, this is not just a recent thing with Obama.  It was done under George W. Bush and most prior presidents, particularly of the 20thcentury.  In fact, this change in overtime pay would be based on the authority of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.  This is not surprising given the fact that the American welfare state really got traction under FDR.
Does Mandated Overtime Help?
Aside from the practice of how these new regulations will be implemented, are the changes themselves a good thing?
Before you get too excited that your employer will have to start paying you overtime, first realize that this is limited to certain job classifications and salaries.  If you are a loan officer, computer technician, or fast-food manager, then you may get a benefit, if you meet the salary qualifications.
But even here, you have to consider that your employer may make changes based on the new rules.  Employers are not ATMs that can just spit out more money based on the newest government dictates.
If an employer has a large number of employees that it must now pay for any overtime work, then you can be sure that adjustments will be made.  This could come in many forms.
The employer may actually cut staff and let go some of its workforce.  Another possibility is that the employer may just eliminate all overtime work.  Another interesting scenario is that employers may actually decrease the salary of these positions.
When an employer hires someone, it will generally determine its costs associated with hiring someone versus the productivity that will be obtained.  If the costs are too high, then the employer may not fill certain positions.  But in this case, an alternative is to reduce the base salary so that the employer can hire more people or pay for the necessary overtime that is now mandated by the government.
The employer may or may not be able to do this, but it is a likely outcome that the salaries for these positions will be forced down in the marketplace because of these new rules.  Employers may not instantly cut salaries for these workers, but it may reflect in lower future benefits, less pay raises, and lower starting salaries for new employees.
Should There Be Any Overtime Pay?
This newest Obama dictate raises an interesting question about overtime pay in general.  Should anyone be paid overtime?
I actually don’t have an answer for that except to say that it should be a voluntary contract between an employee and an employer.  The government should not be interfering in this contract.
I find that this issue goes hand-in-hand with the minimum wage laws.  It is an interference of the government between two consenting parties.  Just as minimum wage laws do not require that an employer hire someone, overtime pay laws do not require that employers offer overtime.
There may be some people who would be happy to work overtime, just to land the job that they desire.  Some employers might offer to pay overtime to its employees, even if there were no government mandates.  It can be beneficial for an employer to have an employee work extra hours rather than having to hire additional people who may not have the same experience or skills.
If there were no government rules about overtime pay, some employers might offer to just pay the same rate for each additional hour worked, instead of the government-mandated time and a half.  Some employees would likely be happy with this arrangement, being able to make some extra money.  But with the expense of time and a half, it is often not an option for most employees.
Of course, some people will always question the free market’s ability to function.  They think that employers will control everything and abuse their employees if the government doesn’t step in and tell them how to operate.  But in actuality, it is in our current environment, where good jobs are difficult to find, that employers are able to demand more out of their employees simply due to the lack of other options by the employees.
If we operated in a true free market system, which would include no laws regarding the minimum wage or overtime pay, then jobs would be far more plentiful and there would be greater competition.  When employees have more options, then it forces employers to compete to get and retain good employees.  This in itself would encourage employers to treat employees better, which could include overtime pay, higher salaries, or less demanding hours.
We must not delude ourselves that the government can simply raise our living standards by implementing new laws and regulations.  Our standard of living goes up due to productivity.  We will get higher productivity in a free and competitive market, not one where the government makes all of the rules.

Mandatory Sentencing is Not a Solution

Mandatory sentencing, which began to take root in the 1970’s, became more popular through the 1980’s and 1990’s.  It was really around the turn of the century that this trend started to reverse.
Since 2000, 29 states have changed their mandatory sentencing laws, generally curtailing them.
The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world on a per capita basis.  Is it that there are a lot more crimes committed in the U.S.?  Is it that law enforcement is really efficient?  Or is it that a lot of people are thrown in jail and kept there for things that wouldn’t be considered horrible crimes in other countries?
It may be a combination of all of these things, although I think that law enforcement efficiency is probably at the bottom of the list.
The problem with discussing mandatory sentencing laws is that there are different things classified as crime.  A murderer or rapist is put into the same category as a drug pusher who has not forcibly harmed anyone else.
The biggest problem with the American justice system (some would say “injustice system”) is that there are a lot of victimless crimes that are enforced.  The situation is made worse with mandatory sentencing laws that hold these so-called criminals in jail for long periods of time.
Even in the case of a violent crime, there are still valid arguments against mandatory sentencing.  Not all crimes are created equal.
There are a lot of odd situations that occur where someone may have been negligent or making a bad decision without intending to hurt someone else.  There are many cases with gray areas.  There are cases where a person may be convicted for bad judgment, even though he may have thought he was using self-defense.
The point is that there really should be flexibility in determining punishment when each case is unique.
Ironically though, mandatory sentencing laws can actually lead to more violent crime.  If the prisons are filled up with people serving long terms because of drugs, then it can often lead to the actual violent criminals getting out sooner.
Prison crowding is a real problem.  In our world today of tightening budgets, many state governments simply don’t have the resources to keep so many people locked up at one time.  But mandatory sentencing laws are keeping many non-violent people behind bars and forcing out violent criminals.
This increases the likelihood of repeat violent crimes, as these are the people who tend to do the same thing over again.  Personally, I would much rather have a person out of jail who is smoking crack in his house than a violent criminal out of jail, ready to prey on his next victim.
As a libertarian, I am against jailing anyone involved in drugs unless they actually hurt another person or encroach on another person’s property.  But mandatory sentencing for victimless crimes is especially appalling, as it frees actual criminals and puts an unnecessary burden on society.
The more recent trend in relaxing these laws is a good thing.  Let’s hope that more states continue with it.
If there is going to be any mandatory sentencing at all, it should be for actual criminals that hurt other people.

Combining Free Market Economics with Investing