I always think of complete free-market libertarianism with no regulations the same way I think of Newton’s 1st law.

Sure, an object will continue in motion at the same speed and in a straight line so long as there are no external forces applied to it. That is true in theory, just like a perfect free market might be true in theory.

But in physics, in day-to-day life there is friction acting on the object so it does slow down and stop.

I think that’s the same thing about the economy. As a society, we’ve decided to add all sorts of “friction,” in the form of rules and regulations, to the economy. Some for bureaucratic reasons I don’t understand. Others because as a society we deem the rule for the public good.

But all these rules inhibit free enterprise and have a negative effect on economic opportunity.

Some examples:

* Requiring a business license.
* Zoning laws.
* Safety regulations at the workplace.
* Requiring extra licenses and standards to run day care centers or nursing homes.
* Requiring licenses to practice medicine.
* Forbidding the running of a friendly neighborhood numbers racket.
* Outlawing the sale of some drugs and requiring doctors prescriptions for others.

The list goes on and on ad infinitum.

Some of those things we might even all agree are good rules, and a civil society depends on them.

But they all have a “friction” effect on the ideal “free economy.” That’s my theory anyway.

So in compensation for following these rules, we expect certain things in return, as part of our social contract. These include roads, police, a military and maybe yes, a post office and national health care running at a financial loss.

It seems it’s all on the table. And can all be decided on a case-by-case basis, just like the rules are. I don’t think we need to apply one overarching philosophical rule to deciding everything. I think the society we have created is all case-by-base. And everything else is just “in theory.”

doug

I took a movie too and will upload it. I wonder if they are ready to live together now.

doug

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-26-gun-control-laws_N.htm

First the text of the amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

1. Even though the amendment is just 1 sentence long, the meaning has never seemed obvious or clear to me.

2. I am not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, it seems to make sense to control obviously dangerous weapons in crowded urban areas and public settings. On the other hand, people should have the right to defend themselves and there is some truth to the saying that if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

3. But what do pro-gun advocates actually believe? That all weapons should be allowed? Rifles? Handguns? Machine guns? Shoulder launched missiles? Personal nuclear weapons? The amendment doesn’t specify that.

doug

(click to see full-size)

doug

doug

doug

Click on the image to see it larger.

doug

Click on photo to see full-size.

doug

And isn’t that a great close-up of Hao-chan?

doug

doug