# Warning: Art Carol Has Determined That Government Regulation Is Dangerous To Your Health **URL:** **By** Art Carol **Published:** December 1, 1972 --- “If people can protect themselves against the purveyors of fear and hate, they can protect themselves against the salesmen of poor quality merchandise.” One of the more exotic phenomena of the era is that so many of those who oppose any state restriction in the market of speech and ideas believe it proper to encourage state restrictions in the market of goods and services. It is as though people could judge for themselves the quality of ideas better than they could judge the quality of products or as though ideas were less capable of doing harm and therefore needed no restrictions. But we cannot have the argument both ways. If people can protect themselves against the purveyors of fear and hate, they can protect themselves against the salesmen of poor quality merchandise. Few pleasures yield as deep satisfaction as complaining. We especially enjoy complaining about the deterioration in the quality of merchandise and service. When our annoyance with the products we purchase exceeds the pleasure of the complaining, we can shop more selectively and stop purchasing some goods entirely. We can pester the culpable firms by phone, mail, and in person; we can refuse to pay bills, threaten court action, give the firms a bad reputation with our neighbors and acquaintances. That much we can do as a start. The so-called champion of consumer protection, Ralph Nader, made his presence felt by writing a best selling book, _Unsafe at Any Speed_. In the finest tradition of the market mechanism, he perceived a demand for a product and made a profit by meeting that demand. His efforts since that time, unsupported by government, have galvanized the country. The government’s part has been the passage of legislation, most of it to take effect some years in the future. But by that time, the companies involved will find ways to circumvent that which is unpalatable. So the only enforcement mechanism really open to the private consumers is to use the power of their pocketbooks. Nader has stressed the point that these firms which ill service the people could not succeeed in a free market; these are the firms which need government protection. By our uncritical acceptance of such agencies as the Food and Drug Administration, we have little perceived _Dr. Carol received his degrees from the New School and Cornell University. His work in economics and operations research has been published in the American Economics Review and numerous other journals._ the need for private competition. The F.D.A. with its monopoly position has done a consistently second rate job. Drugs currently sold with or without prescription are often inert or harmful. Thalidomide was a grotesque example. On the other hand, the ban of cyclamates was based on particularly shoddy research. The experimental animals who suffered from the doses of cyclamates administered would have suffered equally from equal doses of sugar. Where is the evidence that this government monopoly protects anyone? The market solution is to provide consumer guides by private profit making enterprise. These guides would employ specialists in all areas, chemists, engineers, economists, to evaluate the qualities of any and all products. The need for such guides is not widely perceived because of the faith most of us have in the government to protect us. But the fact that guides such as _Consumer Reports_ do operate as profit making ventures is evidence that our faith in government is not quite so overwhelming. We support the government agencies with our tax dollars; yet we consider it a wise investment to voluntarily purchase private product evaluations. Remove the government completely from this function for which it is manifestly unfit and the shock value would induce the people to create a market for a strong competitive industry in product evaluation. No private firm in this industry could afford to do a slipshod job or be bribed by manufacturers. The result would be a loss of consumer confidence as the people discover the guide was unreliable and halted patronage. The media, including pay television stations, which consistently provided sound advice, would prosper. Government officials, being human, are as open to bribery as anyone, and if in addition they are in a monopoly position, the bribes can be used exploitatively. The sugar industry, being far wealthier than the cyclamate, remains in business and a competitor has been eliminated. A superior product is always open to the danger of being declared illegal. The worst a private agency could do to a worthwhile product would be to warn against it. But the government can effectively halt product improvement. Consumer guides cannot investigate each and every product on the market any more than the government can. But dissatisfied consumers can complain to one or more of these guides. A number of such complaints would induce the publications to add to the value of their service by investigating and, if warranted, publicizing the facts, Firms which refused to cooperate with the guides would immediately open themselves to a revelation of this fact. No profit maker can benefit from bad publicity. All this is but to belabor a simple concept. Competition is superior to monopoly, and state monopoly which is coercive both in obtaining and dictating which products may be traded, is monopoly at its worst. Just now the nation is being plagued by narcotics and other deleterious drugs. There are already laws prohibiting the sale of these drugs. Here would seem to be a clear instance of the desirability of state coercion to save the youth and therefore the future of the country. But we are immediately reminded to the experiment with the prohibition of alcohol half a century ago. It failed because people wanted alcohol and readily dealt with organized crime to obtain it. The situation is similar today. What state law does succeed in doing is prevent the legitimate businessmen from competing. In so doing, drugs are turned over to the monopoly of organized crime who operate as any monopoly: they sell inferior products, charge inordinately high prices, and bribe state officials for protection. The drug addict robs and burglarizes innocent citizens to pay the monopoly prices and is denied the less damaging drugs. Similar conditions obtain in gambling, pornography and prostitution. The moral is: do not attempt to outlaw “sin;” you will not succeed. A free market, even in vice, tends to improve the quality of the product. The evidence is all too clear in the face of the current dangers in drugs. To see that government is indeed irrational, one has only to look at the other side of the production process, specifically at labor. There are shortages in many occupations, thereby intensifying the problem of scarcity; simultaneously there are millions of unemployed and under-employed individuals who are potential entrants to these shortage occupations. Yet the government forbids or discourages these individuals from entry thereto with the obvious consequence of aggravating both problems. Much of this is done under the guise of consumer protection. We have had an embarassing history of people being excluded from jobs because their views concerning sex or religion or politics were at variance with those of the government. In the State of Washington, a veterinarian may not heal a sick animal unless he has signed a non-Communist oath. Bertrand Russell could not obtain a position a New York City College for reasons that citadel of free thought prefers to forget. And many talented people in show business forfeited their American careers for exercising their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The examples are as endless as they are ridiculous. Liquor merchants and taxicab drivers are among numerous examples of those who demonstrate their competence in their chosen fields simply by paying the state a fee. This not only reduces the number of workers in these fields, but is a special burden on the poor who cannot afford the fees demanded. Labor unions with sufficient political punch limit the number of entrants to their trade, by pressuring the state to establish licensing requirements or by allowing in only those who have completed union supervised apprentice programs. Construction workers are a prime illustration. So great is their power that they effectively inhibit productivity improvements by their employers. The consequences are high wages for those in the unions, high costs and shortages of housing, the exclusion of minority groups, and low quality standards of performance and product. Using the state as their tool, these unionists are free to beat up students who disagree with their politics and no one dares to interfere. Their haughtiness knows no bounds—plumbers no longer make house calls. In virtually all cases in which formal apprenticeships and licensing examinations are required by law, the group authorized to approve the new entrants is comprised of active practitioners who have a vested interest in keeping their numbers limited. The medical profession is such a case. Here again, productivity gains are low and incomes are high. Many functions may be performed only by those who have had four years of medical schooling, yet the necessary skills could be acquired in far less time. Anaesthesiologists and radiologists are cases in point. Of course, physicians in America are a sacred breed. Few of them know much about medicine and none of them know anything else, but their position in society is unchallengable. The solution in all areas is the same. Abolish state licensing requirements and state consumer “protection” of all kinds. Qualifications in any field can be established by examinations prepared by, and on-the-job performance evaluated by, experts in the field. Generally, people will choose to employ the services only of those who have passed the examinations. A competent individual who is excluded by one device or another could offer his services without violating any law and eventually his genuine ability will be recognized. A few charlatans will also gain acceptance, just as they do now, license and all. Ultimately, no one can protect another against his own ignorance or foolishness—not the market and especially not the state.