25 November 2006

regulatory monopolies are bad... mmkay

when a government assumes full regulatory authority over a certain market, perhaps in a sincere attempt to improve health or fight corporate fraud, it frequently, and sometimes necessarily, creates a policy monoculture that prevents the flourishing of ideas in favor of political expediency. central planning has proven itself time and again to be unresponsive to technological change, scientific fact, and reality.

as the FDA decides what "organic" means for us, we lose sight of what we may actually consider organic, yielding the decision to the "organic" farming industry since they are the players with the cash and therefore influence. this is one scenario in which i would prefer to have distinct certifying authorities that might conform to my higher standards of organic.

when the EPA decides for us the "acceptable" level of specific chemicals in our drinking water, we have only ourselves to blame for putting our fate in the hands of corrupting political influences. companies like Union Carbide or Du Pont ultimately decide what is legal for themselves through the purchase of influence and the drafting of legislation. i do not to want to ingest any arsenic.

people who think free markets necessarily benefit corporations at the expense of the people suffer from a profound lack of vision, prefering to hand power over to the powerful. it is full time to re-sieze our natural rights and responsibilities.

there is no spoon.

No comments:

Post a Comment