Unregulated-- the "Opt Out" Amendment

Unregulated-- the "Opt Out" Amendment

 

 

Hi, I am Joseph Friedlander, and I am preparing to run for President in 2012. Before I start making my videos, and preparing my campaign websites, I want to subject some ideas I have had for restored American liberty to the scrutiny (and potshots) of Mises readers.

 

The central idea of  'Unregulated'-- The Freedom To Opt Out Amendment- is that rather than the fantasies (at present) of seasteading or space settlements to obtain liberty, or the far less likely than space colonization prospect of actually reducing government's burden on the individual right here on Earth--a single Constitutional amendment might greatly ease the suffering of ordinary people under the burden of arrogant statism.

 

A wise person indeed will be fearful of the unseen consequences of proposed Constitutional changes-- one more reason I am grateful for any offered objections.

==

 

 

. 'Unregulated'-- The Freedom To Opt Out Amendment--- Today a pushcart vendor can be harrassed shut down etc. if he has no license. (I am deliberately using a controversial example)

 

 He needs a license because the city needs revenue—I mean, he needs a license because his food might be a danger to public health.

 

(Exactly why someone who wants repeat customers would poison them escapes me, but maybe you can explain it to me...

 

Only regulation can stop catastrophic events-- just ask Wall Street, circa 2008.)

 

You will never convince those who believe in the need for regulation to stop believing in it. So why not just agree to disagree?

 

This federal Constitutional Amendment says (language negotiable) that

 

"Displaying prominently (if it is not visible the protection is not granted) at all times (the sign may not come down unless the business is closed and it must be up before the business is reopened, even to paint a wall for example)  on one's Person or Place of Business a simple sign saying 'Unregulated' shall be sufficient cause to order any local county or state official away other than for purposes of a criminal arrest (this is the only resource for nonpayment of taxes) or execution of a court order of eviction. (They can arrest/evict you or get off your premises, nothing in between, upon being ordered out) Ignoring this shall be cause for a Federal Civil Rights suit.’  (State's rights activists may try to restrict this one to local and county level--but as a Federal Constitutional Amendment it should have the same binding power as the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments (abolition of slavery, civil rights, black sufferage)  to override state objections)  Private summons may be served in case of a tort or lawsuit but not summons for benefit—even through private parties-- of the local county or state authorities trying to harass persons who choose 'Unregulated' status."

 

 

Possible objections and answers:

 

How would you know a business is unregulated?  The sign. It must be up and prominent. It must be large enough to be clearly visible to a person with ordinary vision (there might be sample dimension and font sizes given in the amendment) I would not mind great detail in this since it would short circuit so many other rules and regulations. ---If you don't see it when you walk in, its not up. There would be a very large incentive to put in in a noticeable place.

 

Would incomplete inspection comprise a  menace to public safety? Really, do you imagine EVERY person supposed to get inspection does in fact get it-- or pass it, or that no bribes are paid to inspectors?

 

We ALREADY live in a world with incomplete inspection.

 

What this does is remove the bribetakers and PLAINLY label things so you know the risk you are REALLY taking.

 

Would I care to risk the lower prices of an 'Unregulated' food vendor? Personally, no. But someone who needs cheap food would follow the repeat crowds..

 

 A sale that is not made under standard laws and conditions does not cost the state much lost revenue.

 

 As for customers-- you see the sign. You don't like the concept of 'Unregulated'? It's called shoe leather. Use some and walk away.

 

 NO ONE is forcing you to do business with an 'Unregulated' business. If the quality isn't there, if people get sick eating them, if their scales are cheating--- they will go out of business. It's hard enough to keep an honest, competitive and competent business going when customers are completely satisfied. A sullen cheater of a vendor will simply not be able to compete in the long run.

 

As for homes,  'not up to code' is a phrase made to increase the number of homeless in times when the choice is between food and repairs.

 

And we could bring dozens of other examples from real life. Freeing the poor and the struggling (yes, this includes smaller businesses) from regulations is the best way out of poverty-- because being cracked down on (by a public servant making more than they  ever will) when you are struggling basically kills the desire for self-improvement for life.

 

The first steps out of poverty are full of legal hazards. 'Unregulated' status would free the poor from the legal ceiling preventing their rise from poverty.

 

 And all it would really do, is recognize the actual reality in many cities across the country today, and stop the extortioners and bribe takers in municipal service. This to fulfill the Biblical imperative (Leviticus 25:34) ...and your brother shall live with you...

 

 

--------------

People I have asked object especially to food vendors because to quote a Mr. Metcalf,

"negligence and stupidity can cause massive public health risks."

 

Yes, but that presupposes that governments never do things that exhibit negligence and stupidity.  Ultimately you cannot regulate the regulators. (Regulatory capture/the who guards the guardians problem)  The alleged safety of regulation really just pushes the issues upstairs while causing unspeakable hardship to many.

.

 

“Throwing out all regulations and licensing in favor of the unregulated systems in third world countries would result in us having public health issues in line with what those countries experience.”

 

--Major neighborhoods in New York and Chicago appear to be already there. Acknowledgment of a crisis does not CAUSE a crisis; it lets issues be discussed openly.  Actually, much of the problem in third world countries happens from inadequate clean water availability and improper sewage disposal. 

 

(An objection which I have not yet received, and which I shall preempt here is, suppose a shop does not have adequate sewage disposal?  Well first, the stink will drive away customers so it will be a priority to any sane startup businessman.. Second, all the regulation in the world today does not stop street gangsters and drunk frat boys from going in the alleys, and that is not up to code either. Not theory--fact. But the simple answer to all of these is, if there is rule of law, the right to order public officials out of your private property does not stop private summons for nuisance lawsuits being delivered. If the suit is justified he will lose. Eventually he will be out of business and evicted. End of problem.

 

 Notice-- that anyone being a public menace through infectious neglect would risk massive private lawsuits that could destroy his business. Even if a pushcart vendor, he would lose repeat customers because of loss of reputation and trying to avoid servers with summons. (Not to mention the possibility of private reprisals such as protesters dogging him with signs that would literally warn prospective customers away).  In real life a repeat offender  who harmed people simply would not stay in business. 

 

We need lawyers-- in their proper place, not ruling over us, helping defend our liberties by limiting the way overgrown regulatory structure above us-- with the help of this proposed amendment.

 

Agree-- disagree-- which, and why? 

 

Comments invited, remember what you write may be reposted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v  vvv  gUnregulated-- the "Opt Out" Amendment

 

 

Hi, I am Joseph Friedlander, and I am preparing to run for President in 2012. Before I start making my videos, and preparing my campaign websites, I want to subject some ideas I have had for restored American liberty to the scrutiny (and potshots) of Mises readers.

 

The central idea of  'Unregulated'-- The Freedom To Opt Out Amendment- is that rather than the fantasies (at present) of seasteading or space settlements to obtain liberty, or the far less likely than space colonization prospect of actually reducing government's burden on the individual right here on Earth--a single Constitutional amendment might greatly ease the suffering of ordinary people under the burden of arrogant statism.

 

A wise person indeed will be fearful of the unseen consequences of proposed Constitutional changes-- one more reason I am grateful for any offered objections.

==

 

 

. 'Unregulated'-- The Freedom To Opt Out Amendment--- Today a pushcart vendor can be harrassed shut down etc. if he has no license. (I am deliberately using a controversial example)

 

 He needs a license because the city needs revenue—I mean, he needs a license because his food might be a danger to public health.

 

(Exactly why someone who wants repeat customers would poison them escapes me, but maybe you can explain it to me...

 

Only regulation can stop catastrophic events-- just ask Wall Street, circa 2008.)

 

You will never convince those who believe in the need for regulation to stop believing in it. So why not just agree to disagree?

 

This federal Constitutional Amendment says (language negotiable) that

 

"Displaying prominently (if it is not visible the protection is not granted) at all times (the sign may not come down unless the business is closed and it must be up before the business is reopened, even to paint a wall for example)  on one's Person or Place of Business a simple sign saying 'Unregulated' shall be sufficient cause to order any local county or state official away other than for purposes of a criminal arrest (this is the only resource for nonpayment of taxes) or execution of a court order of eviction. (They can arrest/evict you or get off your premises, nothing in between, upon being ordered out) Ignoring this shall be cause for a Federal Civil Rights suit.’  (State's rights activists may try to restrict this one to local and county level--but as a Federal Constitutional Amendment it should have the same binding power as the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments (abolition of slavery, civil rights, black sufferage)  to override state objections)  Private summons may be served in case of a tort or lawsuit but not summons for benefit—even through private parties-- of the local county or state authorities trying to harass persons who choose 'Unregulated' status."

 

 

Possible objections and answers:

 

How would you know a business is unregulated?  The sign. It must be up and prominent. It must be large enough to be clearly visible to a person with ordinary vision (there might be sample dimension and font sizes given in the amendment) I would not mind great detail in this since it would short circuit so many other rules and regulations. ---If you don't see it when you walk in, its not up. There would be a very large incentive to put in in a noticeable place.

 

Would incomplete inspection comprise a  menace to public safety? Really, do you imagine EVERY person supposed to get inspection does in fact get it-- or pass it, or that no bribes are paid to inspectors?

 

We ALREADY live in a world with incomplete inspection.

 

What this does is remove the bribetakers and PLAINLY label things so you know the risk you are REALLY taking.

 

Would I care to risk the lower prices of an 'Unregulated' food vendor? Personally, no. But someone who needs cheap food would follow the repeat crowds..

 

 A sale that is not made under standard laws and conditions does not cost the state much lost revenue.

 

 As for customers-- you see the sign. You don't like the concept of 'Unregulated'? It's called shoe leather. Use some and walk away.

 

 NO ONE is forcing you to do business with an 'Unregulated' business. If the quality isn't there, if people get sick eating them, if their scales are cheating--- they will go out of business. It's hard enough to keep an honest, competitive and competent business going when customers are completely satisfied. A sullen cheater of a vendor will simply not be able to compete in the long run.

 

As for homes,  'not up to code' is a phrase made to increase the number of homeless in times when the choice is between food and repairs.

 

And we could bring dozens of other examples from real life. Freeing the poor and the struggling (yes, this includes smaller businesses) from regulations is the best way out of poverty-- because being cracked down on (by a public servant making more than they  ever will) when you are struggling basically kills the desire for self-improvement for life.

 

The first steps out of poverty are full of legal hazards. 'Unregulated' status would free the poor from the legal ceiling preventing their rise from poverty.

 

 And all it would really do, is recognize the actual reality in many cities across the country today, and stop the extortioners and bribe takers in municipal service. This to fulfill the Biblical imperative (Leviticus 25:34) ...and your brother shall live with you...

 

 

--------------

People I have asked object especially to food vendors because to quote a Mr. Metcalf,

"negligence and stupidity can cause massive public health risks."

 

Yes, but that presupposes that governments never do things that exhibit negligence and stupidity.  Ultimately you cannot regulate the regulators. (Regulatory capture/the who guards the guardians problem)  The alleged safety of regulation really just pushes the issues upstairs while causing unspeakable hardship to many.

.

 

“Throwing out all regulations and licensing in favor of the unregulated systems in third world countries would result in us having public health issues in line with what those countries experience.”

 

--Major neighborhoods in New York and Chicago appear to be already there. Acknowledgment of a crisis does not CAUSE a crisis; it lets issues be discussed openly.  Actually, much of the problem in third world countries happens from inadequate clean water availability and improper sewage disposal. 

 

(An objection which I have not yet received, and which I shall preempt here is, suppose a shop does not have adequate sewage disposal?  Well first, the stink will drive away customers so it will be a priority to any sane startup businessman.. Second, all the regulation in the world today does not stop street gangsters and drunk frat boys from going in the alleys, and that is not up to code either. Not theory--fact. But the simple answer to all of these is, if there is rule of law, the right to order public officials out of your private property does not stop private summons for nuisance lawsuits being delivered. If the suit is justified he will lose. Eventually he will be out of business and evicted. End of problem.

 

 Notice-- that anyone being a public menace through infectious neglect would risk massive private lawsuits that could destroy his business. Even if a pushcart vendor, he would lose repeat customers because of loss of reputation and trying to avoid servers with summons. (Not to mention the possibility of private reprisals such as protesters dogging him with signs that would literally warn prospective customers away).  In real life a repeat offender  who harmed people simply would not stay in business. 

 

We need lawyers-- in their proper place, not ruling over us, helping defend our liberties by limiting the way overgrown regulatory structure above us-- with the help of this proposed amendment.

 

Agree-- disagree-- which, and why? 

 

Comments invited, remember what you write may be reposted.