Why Conservative States Should Not Regulate Uber Drivers

KrisAnne Hall,

Government regulation of private business is never a good thing. Shocking statement, isn’t it? But it’s true, so let’s look at it.

1.  First, we must recognize that laws don’t stop crimes. Laws aren’t even designed to stop crimes. The criminal justice system is designed to define criminal activity and set up a mechanism to punish criminals. If laws stopped crimes, we would be a crime-free country because we have way too many laws.

2.  Next, we must recognize that every “legitimate” regulation (one that is clearly geared at wrong behavior and not purely a regulatory mechanism to raise revenue) is already covered by a criminal law already on the books–once again proving  point #1. If laws stopped crimes, there would be no need to “double up” on bad-behavior punishment with additional regulation.

3.  Since we know that laws don’t stop crimes, how can we possibly believe that adding additional regulations on top of laws will do any more?  Never mind the fact that the government is really good at selective enforcement of regulations depending on who you are.


4.  So if we know laws don’t stop crimes and the addition of regulations can’t either, what could possibly be the real purpose of regulations?

Answer: Reinforcing in the minds of the people that government knows best. Giving more power to the government over the people. And finally, the biggest reason for regulations, in my opinion, is making sure that people do not actually OWN their businesses–everything is owned by government.

When government regulates private industry, people do not and cannot own their businesses.  People merely possess their business as long as the government wants them too. All it takes is one regulation that you can’t or won’t comply with and–zap!–no business.

Some might claim that you can sue the regulatory agency if the regulation is really a bad one, but that is a false claim of reassurance. You have no business and no income because you can’t comply with the regulation; how are going to afford the lawsuit?  Meanwhile, the government will have deep pockets, filled by the regulatory fees you have paid and the taxes collected, to beat you into submission or bankruptcy; whichever comes first.

Let us not forget that you don’t get to sue the regulatory agency in a real court of law. You will first have to challenge them in an administrative law court where the judge is paid by the government to determine whether the government is following their rules. Constitution? Rights of the people? What are those in a court where the government owns and runs everything. Regulations create a monopoly of all industries because everything has a has a single owner: the government.

The problem is not lack of laws or absence of rules. The problem is selective enforcement of the laws we have and punishments that do not fit the crime.

I am for proper and equal enforcement of just laws within the required confines of due process. I am for complete deregulation of private industry and a return of businesses to their rightful owners, the people who built them. Why would I take such a “radical” position?  Because it is the only position that supports Liberty. And #LibertyMatters!

Now I want to ask a question. Why would this position be radical? Why may those who read this feel uncomfortable with this position? It is, after all, not my original thought. I got it from James Madison:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!”  James Madison, Property, 1792

Related Posts:
Exposing Corporate Tyranny
Speaking About News

Yitzchak Friedman, Would conservatives be OK with a police state and "Corporate  Tyranny" so long as it isn't the government Read more

Making America Again
Speaking About News

Lloyd Billingsley, The daunting task ahead for the patriotic movement. “Oligarchy had long been growing within America’s republican forms,” writes Read more

Speaking About News

Mac Slavo, People who understand what is going on know the value of liberty. And yet, the government’s message is Read more

Big Tech Censorship is Government Censorship
Speaking About News

Daniel Greenfield, This is an argument I've been making for a while. It's refreshing to see the Wall Street Journal run Read more

Send this to a friend