More & more regulation is ALWAYS the solution apparently

So goes the logic. Today the government of NL announced even more stringent regulations on child care facilities. What libertarian ideologue would oppose new regulation to “protect our children”.

In the article, Dale Kirby who introduced the new rules, dismisses concerns from people in the industry by saying there will always be people who oppose regulation, but it’s necessary because it’s for the safety of children.

There are a number of things at play in this situation.

1)      Who can decide what the right level of quality is? Can a top-down government decide that? Is it the same for everyone? Yes, we are dealing with children. But different parents and different children have different wants and needs. Some might want more stringent regulation. Others might want less. As far as I can tell, some of the requirements were already ridiculous and over the top. Now they want more? It’s like when people say “Best possible healthcare” or “best possible education”. Those are meaningless concepts. What is the “best”? If every child was regulated to have 3 caregivers each, you can still do more. You could have 5 or 10 or 2000.

2)      Prices are eliminated or distorted which makes deciding between options very difficult. If the government pays for all or most of the childcare, people will obviously support maximum regulation. It costs them nothing. If they had to pay the real cost, people wouldn’t necessarily want all of the absurd regulations.

3)      Stringent regulation discourages or prevents innovation. Maybe some entrepreneurs have ideas to decrease price and increase value, whether in terms of safety, learning, or any other aspect. Regulating every tiny detail makes it difficult to work within the system and still innovate.

4)      Government paying for daycare of most of it not only distorts the market, but also creates massive economic loss. The goal of free childcare ostensibly is to allow mothers to work to increase family income. The problem is, with all these new regulations, the amount spent per child per day is enormous. I will have to calculate figures on it. But let’s assume $30 per hour per child. If the government pays for childcare, the mother has no incentive to stay home with her child or children. Economically speaking she is better off putting them in indoctrination camps daycare. However, if she puts them in daycare and then goes off to a job which pays $13 per hour, there is an economic loss of $17 per hour. Obviously there is an ulterior motive to daycare and it’s not just about caring for children. Indoctrination is much easier when it starts early. And it’s also the reason why government is so strictly involved.

I know this article didn’t provide a lot of specifics, but these are general thoughts. To summarize:

-          There is no such thing as “best possible” when it comes to services

-          Government involvement distorts prices and discourages innovation

Hear me on Paddy Daly this morning

I am on Paddy Daly's show this morning 590 VOCM, Thursday, February 16, 2017. I will be on probably around 9:30-9:40.

I will be talking about education and how it should be a voucher system. That's a first step toward a completely privatized system.

A Big Thanks to Occupy Democrats Logic

Hey everyone! A huge thanks to Occupy Democrats Logic for posting my meme I made in response to the Odious Occupy Democrats who spreads only lies and falsehoods! Love to hear from you! Comment below!!

Only in socialist newfoundland

Everywhere I look all over the place whether it's in newspapers online television and everywhere else I see advertising from Newfoundland power saying stop using so much energy. That's right they are actually telling their customers to stop using their products so much. Most of the time they are badgering us to purchase more insulation and to use programmable thermostats to maximize efficiency. Well this is what always happens when you introduce socialism into any sphere of life. No other company on the planet whatever tell you to stop using their products so much. But whenever you have socialism you have shortages and high prices. Then that leads to rationing. We can't have nice things because of this.

I just finished reading an article about a similar situation with hot water and water flow. The municipal and provincial governments regulate the amount of water you can have flowing through a tap or shower faucet also with toilets. That's why half the time when you flush the toilet the stuff doesn't even go down fully it just stays there or you have to use a plunger for the toilet brush to clean up afterwards. This never used to be the case in fact toilets were continuing to get better over the years but then of course the government comes into play and there are again shortages and lack of what you need. The same goes with water temperature. That's why people used to be able to put things in the dishwasher and when they came out they would be sparkling clean. No longer now you put things in the dishwasher perhaps for an hour and when they come out there's tons of food still left on them. That's what everybody always says you have to rinse off the plates and cups before you even put them in the dishwasher. So because the government is in charge of water there is obviously a shortage and a lack of quality and will have to pay for it by having dirty dishes and spending much more time doing your dishes that we normally would have to. This also affects our clothing which comes out of the washer. Instead of being sparkling clean the clothes are just barely passable and not really that clean. Detergent companies even had to go out of their way to develop cold water detergent which clearly doesn't really clean anything.

It's just so typical of the government to just try to ruin our lives at every turn in the name of progress but really it's not progress at all but a regress and regress into a worse and worse quality of life each and every day.

Simplistic Arguments from Non-Libertarians.

Here's one of the problems: While libertarians are asked to provide a start-to-finsih explanation of how their system based on freedom will work, and be able to answer any and all objections, non-libertarians simply have to state "the government will fix it" and that's considered sufficient.

I often engage in such discussions with people. Their thought process is as follows:

1. Problem identification
2. Government needs to spend money to solve this problem
3. Problem solved.

This isn't just people who don't know much about the system who talk like this. I listen to open line shows sometimes and you'll get high-paid executives from various industries or agencies who will use the exact same logic, never going any deeper in their analysis.

They are very good at talking about why their issue is of utmost important, but there is absolutely no creativity in solving it.

Now, #2: Government needs to spend money to solve this problem is often replaced with "government needs to regulate this more". It's always one of the two. Either more regulation or more money. That's it. You present me any problem and I can use this logic to solve it.

Problem: Roads are insufficient
Solution: more gov. money on roads

Problem: Not enough day cares
Solution: More government day cares

Problem: workers don't get enough money
Solution: Legislate higher wages.

Wow, what an easy job. The crazy part is that most people don't believe other solutions even exist. If I were to ask these advocates what the next best solution would be, they would draw a total blank.

And the other thing is people who don't advocate government involvement seem to be required to explain, in detail, how everything will work perfectly.

Oh, and to top it off, they aren't judged against the real world results the government is currently getting. They are judged against utopia. So we must perfectly explain, in detail, how we will achieve utopia, while the statists get away with simple rewording the problem as a solution.

The failures of government are forgiven but any failure in the private sector is harshly condemned. Usually the reasoning is something like "well, yes the government program failed, but they tried their best." but "yes the private sector failed, because they are greedy and only care about profit."

So that's what we're up against.

The Government is the most discriminatory of all

People say we need government to combat discrimination. But in the end, government creates far more discrimination than it eliminates. There are thousands of examples. I will just name a few off the top of my head.

Examples:

• When government takes tax money and uses it to subsidize only certain vocational fields, such as certain trades. This is discriminatory against people not in those trades who have to pay for their own education.
• Tax money that supports only females in certain fields. This is discriminatory against men. Especially when the gov pays 90% of their salary.
• When government automatically gives custody of children to women.
• When there are programs designed to sponsor people of a certain age only. This is ageist.
• Government programs to help visible minorities, even ones that outpace whites overall.
• Preference to bilingual people even when the job interacts very little in the other official language.

This is just briefly off the top of my head. I'm sure if this is open to the public, they could find dozens of specific examples. So one great step in eliminating discrimination would be eliminating government involvement in the economy.