The Key 2 Liberty involves learning the principles of freedom for yourself and then sharing your knowledge with others.

Free Markets

Examples of government regulations that oppose free market principles

Federal regulation of the medical industry

It is amazing how many regulations exist for the medical industry at all levels of government.  A “regulation” is nothing more than a “restriction” of a person’s natural rights.  With regard to the medical industry government regulations restrict the rights of doctors, patients, and people that are not even directly involved with a particular medical task.  They can restrict the right of doctors to operate their businesses the way they want to by requiring them to perform certain procedures for their patients that they otherwise would not do if it were not specifically required of them.  One way they restrict the rights of patients is by not allowing them to purchase medical insurance from any company they wish.  For example, people of one state are typically not allowed to purchase medical insurance from a company from another state.  Regulations of the medical industry can even affect people that are not directly involved with a particular doctor or patient by forcing some people to pay for the medical costs of others as a result of our unequal tax system or by forcing healthy people to be grouped together with unhealthy people in a group insurance plan.  As with tax credits when the government creates regulations for the medical industry it is doing nothing more than redistributing the wealth from one group of people to another and determining the winners and losers of the economy, the antithesis of freedom and liberty.  Here are a few specific examples of government regulations that oppose free markets.


Medicare is the all too familiar government mandated “insurance” program for individuals 65 and older.  All citizens of the United States are required during their working years to pay a payroll tax in order to help pay for the cost of Medicare.  In 2012 this tax was set at 2.9% of a person’s earnings.  The Medicare payroll tax actually only covers about half of the cost that is required to fund Medicare, the rest comes directly out of the general fund.  The first important point about Medicare is that it is unconstitutional at the federal level since nowhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does it grant the Congress the power to create such a program.  Even at the state level this kind of program just simply opposes the principles of a free market.  There is absolutely no reason that the free market cannot take care of the problem of delivering health insurance to retired individuals and do a better job of it.  When companies are forced to compete against each other to deliver a product or service that people need and are willing to buy they will produce the product or service better than the government ever could since there is basically no incentive for employees of a government bureaucracy to deliver the best product or service at the best price to the public.  When a government bureaucracy is put in charge of running something there is never a penalty for delivering a bad product or service.  This is the opposite of what happens when companies have to operate within a free market.  In a free market companies that deliver a bad product or service go out of business.

Despite the fact that the cost of Medicare is now over 13% of the total federal budget which for 2012 is planned to be 3.8 trillion dollars, 1.3 trillion dollars of which being deficit spending, putting the cost of it at around 494 billion dollars, many people vigorously defend the Medicare program and criticize anyone who speaks out against it.  This program, like every other subsidy or tax credit is just simply another tool for the government to redistribute the wealth from one group of people and give it to another.  The undeniable fact about Medicare is that if this country was truly based on the principles of freedom and liberty it would be optional and not mandatory for its citizens to take part in it.  It is also a fact that if it were optional most people of average or above average incomes would not participate in it because they simply do not get back out of the program what they put into it.  This of course works out great for lower income people who get much more out of the program than they put into it.  So why don’t Americans just call Medicare what it is, a mandated, medical welfare program to redistribute the wealth of average to above average income earners to the low income earners?  In a country where people are supposed to be able to keep the fruits of their labor the practice of wealth redistribution should be considered detestable. 


The fundamental concept of a free market is that individuals are able to purchase products and services from other individuals and businesses with a minimum of government interference.  In a true free market economy people should be able to hire the doctor of their choice and doctors should be able to run their businesses the way they feel is best for them and be able to determine how much they are going to charge for their services and the method in which they are going to charge for their services.  Companies that manufacture medicines should not be required to get approval in order to sell their products from an agency of the federal government that determines whether or not their medicines are safe.  By placing massive regulations on the health care industry Obamacare will destroy the free market’s ability to provide health care to people at an affordable rate.  The explosive rise in the cost of health care over the past few years is not due to a lack of regulations to make sure hospitals, doctors and medicine manufacturers deliver their products and services at a “fair” price.  It is because there are already too many regulations in place that health care costs have exploded and by creating more regulations the problem is only going to be compounded.

All regulations concerning heath care should be solely created by the state governments.  Similar to the previous argument concerning the constitutionality of Medicare, there has been no power granted to the Congress to create laws that regulate heath care.  Section 1, Article 8 lists the specific, enumerated powers that have been delegated to the Congress and the power to regulate health care is not included as one of the enumerated powers.  If health care is left for the states to decide, as it should be, then each state will be forced to compete with each other to provide the best health care for their citizens.  Most people agree that some amount of welfare is needed for those people that for one reason or another are having difficulty providing for their own health care.  Few people, unfortunately, understand which level of government should provide this welfare.  If the federal government creates a health care plan and it turns out not to be a good plan then everyone is stuck with it.  If a state creates a health care plan and it turns out not to be a good plan then the people of that state at least have the ability to move to a state they believe will suit them better.  If a state begins to lose some of its citizens to other states they will eventually have to change its laws in order to encourage people to live there.  The people that have the financial means to relocate to a different state are typically the highest tax payers and a state would be foolish to run off the highest source of revenue that pays for its expenses.

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, the federal government is now in charge of practically every part of the health care industry.  Included in the new law is a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase health care insurance.   This law totally opposes the basic concepts of freedom and liberty and completely ignores the reason why people like George Washington fought against the armies of King George of England when the country was founded.

Obamacare is an egregious act of tyranny which either needs to be repealed by the Congress or nullified by the individual state legislatures in order to make it unenforceable.  If the American people continue to allow the federal government to swallow up the responsibilities that were clearly left to the states by the Founders of the Constitution they will soon find themselves living under a totalitarian government that absolutely denies its people the right to own private property or keep the fruits of their labor.  If this happens the productive people of the country, due to a lack of motivation, will shut down and quit producing useful products and services and cause society to progressively collapse into a state of total chaos.  It is basic human nature that if a government takes everything that is produced by its people the people will be forced to start living hand-to-mouth in order to not surrender the fruits of their labor to others.   Only by people respecting the private property of others can an orderly and moral society be maintained.  Hopefully the American people realize this before it is too late and restore the constitutional republic that was once established by our Founders.

Federal CAFE standards for the auto industry

In 1975 the Congress established new regulations for the auto industry that requires auto manufacturers to regularly improve the fuel economy of their vehicles called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  The CAFE standards only apply to cars and trucks that weigh less than 8500 pounds and requires that the average fuel economy measured in miles per gallon of all vehicles made by a company in the same year be lower than a predetermined level.  If the manufacturer goes over this level it is monetarily fined.  Cars and light trucks are grouped separately and are given different fuel economy levels to comply with.  Trucks are permitted to be somewhat less fuel efficient than cars.  The average fuel economy level required for auto manufacturers for a given year is set by the Congress based on the current technology available, the genuine ability of manufacturers to economically utilize new and available technology and the estimated need of the nation to conserve fuel resources.  The fuel economy level is typically raised over time as new technology allows.  Unfortunately, much of the information used by Congress to determine what the fuel economy level should be for a particular year is considered speculative by many people, especially those who are concerned with the principles of freedom and liberty and want to live under limited, federal and state governments.

CAFE regulations are first and foremost unconstitutional since the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not include the power to regulate what types of products or services that people or businesses can make or provide for the public.  These powers are clearly reserved to the states.  The people of each state must be free to decide for themselves what regulations if any should be placed on manufacturers of cars and trucks.  An economy cannot be considered a free market when the principles of federalism are being ignored.

If each state makes its own laws concerning the manufacture of vehicles the people of the Unites States will at least have the ability to move to a different state if they feel the laws there would better suit them.  In order for people to truly have freedom they must be able to make choices for themselves with a minimum of government interference.  People should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to buy a fuel efficient car or not.  If people are willing to pay for the additional cost of fuel associated with driving a vehicle that is not fuel efficient then they should be given that choice.  Manufacturers should create products for people based on what they want and not on what the government wants or allows.  The people of a republic should always side with liberty over governmental control.  Let the people vote with their wallets and all will be well with the free market.