The Balancing Act of Regulation and Individual Freedom

(and why the US should consider voting two year-olds into office in 2012 :) )

In the US, the Republicans have voiced opposition to the proposal of implementing federal standards for usage of more efficient light bulbs. On the surface it sounds ludicrous considering that governments, industry and people are placing increasing emphasis on going green. Their justification is that mandating the use of light bulbs that meet a minimum level of energy efficiency encroaches upon the freedom of the affected American citizens.

The justification propounded by the Republicans is fairly paradoxical considering the government does pass laws that mandate citizens to do certain things, or not to do certain things, on a fairly regular basis. It’s a slippery slope really, because why can I not claim that paying income tax encroaches on my personal freedom much the same way having to use a certain kind of light bulb does. So then, can I choose to not pay my taxes?

At the heart of the entire issue is really the question of where the line between setting laws that promote utilitarian good and smooth (or less rough) functioning of society and regulation that violate ideals of individual freedom lies. When is it okay for the government to modify your actions and choices by way of laws and regulation and when it is not okay?

If individual actions and “desired” actions always coincided, then we wouldn’t need a body with authority to formulate and implement laws. However, given that some would choose to steal, kill, destroy and behave in ways that give rise to negative externalities for the rest of society, we need guidelines if we even want any semblance of a utopian equal-opportunity society. An equal opportunity society, which is a fundamental notion underlying the concept of democracy, would ideally mean that one individual’s actions do not have a negative impact on other individuals simply because such a negative externality would mean the impacted individual would no longer have equal opportunity.

Using this simplified logic, to keep regulation and individual freedom balanced on the tightrope, regulation should only restrict individual freedom when such freedom gives rise to negative externalities for other members of society. While this logic is fairly simple, practical implementation is anything but simple as the example below illustrates.

Recently, a fairly radical idea was put forth saying that morbidly obese children should be taken from their parents by the state and put into foster care. Firstly, you have to decide whether the parents’ actions and the home environment is responsible for their morbid obesity. However, obesity isn’t that simple and no one thing can be singled out as the cause. Secondly, if you decide the parents are responsible, you have to reason whether the regulatory alternative restores equal opportunity. There’s no guarantee that foster care can reset the kids’ eating and exercise behaviors although there are one or two cases where this has happened. In fact some kids may be worse off under foster care as the transition process could prove to be an emotional strain. So is a regulation of this nature desirable?

The problem is that “desired” actions are not easy to distil. While we seem to always be working towards utopian ideals, we don’t really know the path that leads to them (makes you thankful for Google maps and cabbies!). As far as light bulbs and the US debt ceiling go, however, the picture is a lot clearer. More efficient light bulbs would mean lower carbon emissions, which would definitely be a positive externality. Possible downside of slightly higher costs and not being able to use that light bulb in the pretty shape don’t seem like that much of a price to pay. Raising the debt ceiling would avert a potential global recession. The egos of Republicans, and maybe a few Democrats, are a negligible cost compared to the benefit. Unfortunately for all of us, some Republicans behave like stubborn two-year olds. Except for the part where two-year olds usually get what they want (which might well be because they want chocolate and are cute; not quite on the same plane as a few trillion dollars!).

 In many cases passing a black and white judgment as to whether a certain kind of law encroaches upon individual freedom in an undesirable way is enveloped in shades of gray. We implicitly trust our elected government (for those living in democracies, since equal opportunity, which is a basic premise of this article, pertains to democracies) to discern the shades of gray and uphold our individual freedom. That will always mean that regulation and individual freedom will continue to sway as the scales of the weighing scale move up and down searching for that elusive equilibrium that they will never reach since not everybody uses the same kind of weighing scale.