This was originally posted on PoodleRose on July 19, 2013. Comments have not been migrated.
Americans often clamor about “excessive” regulations. They do not argue against regulations as a matter of principle, but only those that go “too far.” As an example, they might cite an Agriculture Department regulation that requires magicians to obtain a license and develop a disaster plan for the rabbits they use in their shows. While few would dispute that this regulation defies common sense, even fewer question the premise that leads to such controls.
Underlying every regulation is the premise that the “public interest” supersedes the interests of individuals, that it is proper to force individuals to act contrary to their own judgment for the alleged good of the community, the nation, or some other group. This is the premise that must be rejected.
To claim that regulations are necessary, but shouldn’t go “too far” is to claim that individual liberty should be limited. To concede that principle is to reduce oneself to bickering over details—what is “too far” for one person may not be far enough for another.
Abolishing government regulations does not mean that individuals can engage in activity they desire. Individual liberty is not a license to violate the rights of others. Individual liberty recognizes the freedom of each individual to act as he judges best, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. This precludes the initiation of force, such as robbery, kidnapping, murder, and fraud.
“Excessive” regulations is a redundancy. All regulations are excessive.