Alex Merced

The Law, Legislation, and Tolerance

by Alex Merced

As mentioned by George Mason University economist Don Boudreux, F.A. Hayek had important insights into society’s institutional behavior in his distinction between the Law and Legislation.The distinction being that legislation are rules formally instituted by a legislative body (think government) and laws are the rules we universally and informally follow.

Driving home the distinction:

– It is legislation that prohibits the sale and use of marijuana in the United States, but it’s not necessarily a piece of legislation people follow strictly because this has weakened over time as social law.

– While there is no explicit rule to not cut people in line, we all know not to and generally don’t. This would be an example of a social law.

Often times legislation is guided by law, because legislation that runs contrary to the societal laws of the time will often be difficult to pass, much less enforce, without political consequences. From a libertarian standpoint, this creates several implications that libertarians should concern themselves with.

1. Societal Law can be a barrier to Coercive Legislation: While politics is not really an ideological sphere of society (politicians use ideology to gain power successfully more so  than ideologues use politicians to shape society successfully). So if libertarians are concerned with the size of government and equality under the law (meaning legislation that does create arbitrary societal divides), then the societal law (culture, norms, ethics etc) should hold these things in high regards so that legislation that runs counter to these goals finds it difficult to exist or be enforced. Luckily, the United States has a deep historical culture of inclusiveness (melting pot), skepticism of central rule (revolutionary war, Nixon Scandals, NSA), and celebration of individual achievement (when we think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and other entrepreneurs, we think of their individual achievement first, and barely, if ever, think of any indirect or direct government involvement in their enterprises). So the United States societal law has always been primed to keep certain lines difficult to cross more so than other nations (not that they haven’t been crossed, or that these barriers haven’t weakened at all).

2. Not participating in shaping societal law can make the fight against coercive legislation an uphill battle: If we don’t, through cultural transmission channels like family (how many laws/manners did you learn from your parents), media (how much did you learn from certain TV shows and movies), and the education system, attempt to make or keep things like property rights, non-aggression, and appreciation/tolerance of the individual part of societal law we will find legislation drifting further into larger violations of these values that libertarians hold dear.

So, distinguishing the external forces that shape our behavior and choices into law and legislation can be a very useful tool in solving the types of problems and issues us libertarians concern ourselves with. Another useful taxonomy is that of Institutions and Organizations from economist Douglass C. North. In this breakdown, institutions are the formal and informal human constructs that we allow to limit our behavior (legislation, laws, etc.) and Organizations are the hierarchies of how individuals organize to accomplish a shared goal. So if we look at a university, the distinction between the organization (the president, faculty, and their powers) and the institution (the formal school rules and informal traditions that have developed) can be broken down to help understand the social dynamics.

Libertarians making an effort to use these types of insights to improve and strengthen our understanding of society within the framework of Libertarian philosophy present a great opportunity to push forward the importance and argument for our cause.

Advertisements

A Landscape of Liberty Friendly Institutions

by Alex Merced

In every libertarian evolution, we go through a lot of different phases as we discover our core convictions and views. At different points in my ideological journey I’ve identified with labels such as classical liberal, conservative, minarchist, and anarcho-capitalist, and then I got to the point where I stopped worrying about all these nuances and labels and just said, “I’m a libertarian concerned more with promoting libertarian thought and libertarian means than focusing on any particular ideal power structure.” (Is there any ideal anything? If there was, would it always remain ideal?) At the end of the day, looking at issues from the perspective of, “Is there government intervention (bad), or not (good),” while totally agreeable in its implications, I feel it overlooks a great point. It’s a point which I think many more cutting edge libertarian philosophers and economists are starting to see. Our individual lives and ability to make choices regarding that life, and the property we’ve accumulated in that life, are affected by much more than just government. Institutions such as family, religion, etc. all play a role in our ability to make choices regarding our lives, property, and ability to pursue happiness. Appreciating this reality doesn’t imply any consent for the use of force, instead it just recognizes another dimension of the battle for liberty.

This dimension is molding institutions (social norms, laws, family, etc.) in ways that are conducive to a  view that respects an ability for an individual to make choices about their life and property.  This goal does not need force, but instead participation in social discourse through participation in these institutions so they can be reformed from the inside, through education, so others may make voluntary choices that reform these institutions, and through research so that we can learn more about how these institutions can be improved. (Are there better governance or management systems we can voluntarily adopt? What dynamics make successful families work that other families can adopt?)

In helping understand what reforms and institutions are liberty friendly, I’ve defined four characteristics of institutions that are liberty friendly and liberty hostile (notice how government often encompasses many of these features in the latter category):

Open (Friendly) vs. Closed (hostile): an open institution has very low barriers to participation. Due to this, the market/choice mechanism allows the institution to evolve. A closed institution has high barriers to entry which limits participation, giving the participants an over sized share of power in the institution which they often use to keep others out, slowing down its ability to evolve with other institutions.

Dynamic (Friendly) vs. Static (hostile): a dynamic institution has the flexibility to evolve with changing situations and circumstances while a static institution does not. This eventually will lead to its fighting liberty to protect itself from becoming obsolete.

Transparent (friendly) vs. Opaque (hostile): An institution that is transparent and allows a more free flow of information will enable people to make better choices. While an opaque institution hides information, often not allowing individuals to make proper assessments and choices of different situations (think the NSA).

Voluntary (Friendly) vs. Compulsory (hostile): A voluntary institution has a better feedback mechanism in peoples choices to determine if it’s providing value. A compulsory does not have this mechanism at all, which often leads to the development of the other three hostile characteristics.

So, to make the world more liberty friendly, as libertarians we should discuss how to make institutions more libertarian friendly and take the appropriate non-coercive methods to achieve these reforms.

A Discussion of the Civil Right Act of 1964

by Alex Merced

Having started an organization dedicated to building tolerance in a libertarian framework, I might as well go ahead an attack the elephant in the room when it comes to libertarians and issues like these. Often times when libertarians take on the mantle of social progress absent of government by discussing things like marriage equality or ending the drug war, progressives attempt to dismiss us libertarians by arbitrarily bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its public accommodations clause. In order to show why this dismissive argument is unfair and a distraction from modern discussions, let’s first learn about the contents of the 11 articles of the civil right act and see what libertarian reservations would be.

Article I – Banned unequal application of voting laws. I can’t imagine any libertarian having a problem with this particular clause. It’s the epitome of “equality under the law.” Although, all this did was end unequal application of current laws, it didn’t end other forms of voting disenfranchisement. This was later done in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was weakened in 2013 by the Supreme Court. I personally think the voting rights act was a reasonable law. It’s not about state or federal rights but preventing oppression by government and any tool that can prevent any oppression is fine with me. (From my understanding the VRA doesn’t violate any property rights, instead it restrains state governments from limiting the participation of it’s citizens in democratic elections.)

Article II – Often referred to as the public accommodations clause, it prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc. engaging in interstate commerce (exempting private clubs, so essentially you can create an establishment only open to private members if you really want to be discriminatory). I will discuss the controversy over this particular clause and my take on it after I finish all the articles of the CRA.

Article III – This banned discrimination in public institutions like public parks and restrooms. While libertarians are generally for privatizing most public property, anything that is publicly owned should be open to well, the public. In other words, this is a no brainer for libertarians. It’s like marriage. While many libertarians don’t think a marriage license should exist, as long as it does it should be available to everyone.

Article IV – This enabled the desegregation of public schools. For libertarianism this is perfectly fine by the same logic as Article III.

Article V – Strengthened the Civil Rights Commission that was created in 1957, which only investigates and makes recommendations. From a libertarian perspective this is mild since it can’t really compel anything but it costs taxpayer money to maintain such a commission. I understand the need of a feedback mechanism for issues like these, but like them or not, don’t organizations like the NAACP and ACLU kind of serve this purpose with mostly voluntary donations?

Article VI – Bans discrimination by agencies that receive federal funds. While libertarians aren’t really big on public funds in the first place, I don’t see why regulating the use of public funds and public institutions would bother any libertarians. You’re not messing with anyone’s property that wasn’t already confiscated via taxation.

Article VII – Bans discrimination by employers of 15 or more (also exempts business where the trait you’re discriminating against is vital to the job). Myself along with most libertarians don’t think people should segregate their business or be discriminatory in hiring based on things like race. But, it’s always uneasy with libertarians when you set a precedent for telling people what do with their property (for many their business is their property). So this along with clause II is what usually gets us libertarians in trouble with the orthodoxy.

Article VIII – required the collection of race and gender data in voting. Aside from the cost to the taxpayer, I can’t think of anything to really complain about here. The data can be useful. Although when you collect data like this, you make people think of data in terms of race and gender vs. other traits and characteristics that may highlight other trends. (You can’t measure everything, but what one measures does shape how people think about things, which is worth thinking about)

Article IX – This article made it easier to take a state case ruled on by a segregationist judge and move it to the federal courts. I don’t see any problems with this, if someone is in a situation where they can’t receive a trial from an impartial judge there should be recourse.

Article X – Created the Community Relations Service, which helps communities resolve disputes over discrimination. Aside from the funding, I don’t see any particular thing to be offended about.

Article XI – Allows placing the violators of the other articles in criminal contempt for up to $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. Aside from the enforcement of charges against private property use I don’t see a particular problem with this.

My Personal Opinion

The civil rights act isn’t on anyones radar to repeal for two reasons:

– There are laws that create actual problems that need to be dealt with like Sarbanes Oxley, Affordable Care Act, and Dodd Frank. Usually this half-century old law only comes up as political fodder to entrap libertarians.

– When I look at all the articles I find that I can more often agree with than disagree with the law. (Although, in principle, the clauses that violate private property rights can make me feel slightly uncomfortable. However the clauses preventing local governments from segregating public spaces makes me feel good and makes up for the previously stated discomfort.)

The controversy

Most libertarians probably aren’t fully aware of all the articles in the CRA, but libertarians like myself are very hard pressed to ever express any kind of flexibility on our resolution of private property rights (because they are integral to functioning markets, and we tend to really appreciate how small concessions can lead to large losses of other freedoms over time).

At the end of the day if I was a libertarian congressman in 1964 (probably wouldn’t have been back then considering I’m Latino), I would probably have to cast my vote for the act due to the value of it’s restraints on government power to compel discrimination. While many libertarians are very split on this pointless hypothetical that is often given to us I think it is generally a worthwhile law with fewer flaws than many others.

Why libertarians should care about Tolerance

by Alex Merced

After my article on advocating for tolerance of/acceptance for the transgender population I got several critical messages not about whether people should be accepted/tolerated but attacking my libertarian bona fides for even discussing it, as if being libertarian means being completely agnostic on the outcome of all issues all the time. If anything, these individuals have seemed to miss the point of my article, and possibly of libertarianism itself.

From the libertarian perspective just about everything should be solved by the interplay of individuals and their choices, also known as markets. Which cell phones should be sold? Let the market decide. How should you educate children? Let the parents decide. Which house should you buy and how should you finance it? You should decide. This extends to the market for values and preferences (what you think is right or wrong, what rituals and traditions do you practice, how do these things change), etc. Although these things evolve in an interplay of individual choices (a market) as well, even if there aren’t direct exchanges of money, decisions are made and some social norms succeed and fail over time.

These markets work because people act on their preferences and values. As a libertarian, I want people to have a view on which cell phone they want, to choose to act on that view, and even evangelize their choice. I just don’t want anyone making the choice for them. As a participant in the market for social norms, I am entitled to being able to choose the norms I like and evangelize them. I’m free to make the claim that if people voluntarily embrace these norms the world may be better off (I just don’t advocate forcing people to adopt these norms).

To me, engendering a culture of tolerance and acceptance has many consistently libertarian benefits:

– Libertarians are against violence and coercion. It’s one of the primary reasons we have such a distaste for government as a mechanism for economic or social engineering  (the fact that it often works poorly at doing so doesn’t help). Intolerance can often be a big motivator of violence (a good transgender friend of mine was recently beaten and sent to the hospital with her boyfriend). While I think there should be equality under the law and a crime should be treated as a crime for a jury (the judge should have the discretion to lessen or worsen a punishment based on circumstances in my view, but the jury should only determine if a crime has been committed not determine whether they liked the motivation for the crime which is what hate crime legislation does). Although, if social norms were more tolerant from the get go, the violence may have never occurred for it to be a legal issue in the first place.

– Promoting tolerance doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to be intolerant with their own property and choices, but promoting tolerance is about ending the atmosphere that makes people feel it’s alright to destroy someones property because they may be different in some way.

My point is that if libertarians are anti-coercion and anti-force, creating a culture that exalts individual choice and property ownership and shames violence/coercion from government or individuals is a project that must be actively taken on. If this isn’t, other cultural norms that may be ok with violence/coercion will win out in the cultural market.

Monetary Policy and Income Equality

by Alex Merced

In a previous article I discussed that redistribution of income isn’t necessary to create equality, instead you should unleash market forces by reducing barriers into wealth markets. In this article I’d like to make the argument that another culprit in creating growing inequality is not only market controls but monetary policy, especially expansionary policy.

What is Monetary Policy?

Monetary policy is a policy tool, often controlled by central banks, that revolves around the control of a country’s money supply and credit. Monetary policy mechanisms usually consist of interactions with the banking system that make it easier or harder for banks to extend more credit. A couple of major mechanisms include:

Discount Lending: When banks have liquidity or solvency issues they may borrow from other banks to keep things going, but when there isn’t a bank to borrow from they can go to the central bank and borrow against typically high quality assets(“safe” stable liquid assets like government debt). These loans are usually in the form of deposits on the banks balance sheet (record of asset and liabilities).

Open Market Operations: Another way of getting money in and out of financial institutions is to enter short term contracts called Repurchase Agreements (repos for short) where the Central Bank lends money by purchasing an asset today with a contractual promise the bank will repurchase it from the central bank in coming days (the reverse of this is called a reverse repo when central banks need to take money from the banks).

Quantitative Easing: Similar to open market operations without the agreement to repurchase, basically the central bank outright sells or buys assets depending on their goals which can have the largest impact of three mechanisms discussed in this article.

What are contractionary and expansionary policy?

The central bank usually conducts either contractionary policy or expansionary policy:

Expansionary Policy: By increasing the amount of money in the economy (usually in the form of lending to banks) the amount of credit available increases. This is usually done when  central banks are worried about unemployment (due to what I believe is a misguided belief in a trade-off between unemployment & inflation). So by inflating the money supply several things happen such as…

– The lowering of real interest rates (rates after inflation) makes it unwise to hold money, or even relatively safe investments (since the return will still be negative after inflation), encouraging investment in riskier higher return investments

– Lower interest rates will encourage more borrowing (although the lower rates would discourage lending, the low real rates make it even worse not to).

Contractionary Policy: By decreasing the amount of money in the economy you end up with the opposite result.

How does this affect inequality?

While inflating the money supply may not immediately in the short run inflate the price level, it can have several pernicious effects on the distribution of wealth.

1. Drives up the prices of capital goods: the low nominal and real rates will make longer term, capital intensive investments more attractive resulting in driving up the prices of capital (natural resources, property, etc.). The result is that this increase in capital asset values increases return to the owners of capital (often the wealthier portion of the population) and squeezes out the resources available to firms to pay labor even if the purchasing power hasn’t depreciated yet (the low income population depends on wages a bit more).

2. Financial assets will also be driven up in value: Since financial institutions are the mechanism for increasing the money supply, money that isn’t lent will often go into buying financial assets like stocks. One signal that prices of stocks may be drifting away from the real value of the company is rising Price/Earning Ratios (often referred to as expanding multiples on financial television). This means the owners of financial assets (often the wealthy) get a pseudo-free gain on their assets increasing disparities in wealth. This is often justified under the idea of the “Wealth Effect” that people seeing their assets increase in value will spend and invest more.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with consumer prices and asset values rising, the intervention of the central banks creates a one sided arbitrary and regressive redistribution of wealth in the name of financial stability.

Libertarians Should Lead the Way for Transgender Acceptance

by Alex Merced

Libertarianism is often well known for its concerns over the use of government power in solving economic and social issues, primarily because such power often attracts the wrong people to wield it and can often do more harm than good (a government that is powerful enough to establish and enforce hate crime legislation is also a government strong enough to establish and enforce the fugitive slave act.) So when it comes to issues of tolerance, you won’t find a philosophy more celebratory of diversity and tolerance (a free market works because of a diversity of goods, services, firms, and individuals) but often lambasted for its refusal to cross the line of using government power to compel tolerance or intolerance (or compel anything in that matter).

Although, just because libertarians do not want to use government power to force social progress, it doesn’t mean libertarians shouldn’t express social values and engage in the discussion of social norms. Over time, social attitudes have changed to more tolerant ones. Tolerant in a greater way than just “I don’t mind those people” but extending to being able to share space and participation in social institutions such as entrepreneurship, leisure, and family. In the generation prior to mine this battle over tolerance was focused here in the U.S. over tensions between the African American and White populations, and in my generation it has been about tensions between homosexual and heterosexual populations. These days it’s not just that there is tolerance for African Americans and Homosexuals but widespread acceptance of their participation as business owners, as co-workers, consumers, and as part of household formation.

The struggle for tolerance and acceptance in the coming generation will have a lot to do with gender identity. We are currently witnessing controversy over how to handle bathrooms for transgender students, and physical assaults against them in photos on instagram or video on YouTube. While the transgender population has enjoyed an increase in tolerance along with homosexuals (the two populations are not the same despite often being lumped in the same category) acceptance of the transgender population still has a long way to go.

Now, tolerance and acceptance is not just about feeling good that peoples lives are a little bit better. It serves an economic and social function as well. A broader participation in economic institutions such as entrepreneurship benefits everyone, adding people to the labor force benefits everyone, but sometimes intolerance and a lack of acceptance can reduce participation in these institutions.

So how can libertarians improve tolerance & acceptance of Transgendered and other populations suffering intolerance at no fault of their own without the use of government force?

– Media: Shows like Cosby, Will & Grace, and other introduced these populations in a broader way not as a spectacle but as people with their own lives, challenges, and families. How about a sitcom with a transgender protagonist facing many of the same family issues we all do? The images we grow up with in our culture determine many of our sensibilities, so we should use this to our advantage. Transgender characters often do exist in media but often as a “spectacle” in roles that societies “allow” to be accepted (hairdresser, model, prostitute) but where is the transgender business owner or engineer (they do exist) in the public eye?
*The character of Sophia Burset in Orange is the new Black is by far the boldest transgender character on tv with complex family and health issues that make her interesting, although she is often found doing hair, thus keeping transgender activities in a narrow band.

– Support: Sometimes it’s just about breaking vicious cycles, many young children who open up to their parents are often cast out and forced to be runaways. Being ripped away from the support system of the family affects their ability to get educated and to later be able to participate in the traditional labor force. Fundraising and volunteering for shelters and education for runaway youth can help break the cycle.

Conclusion

While empowering government to solve social problems will often result in empowering them to create social problems, libertarians should not allow big government progressives to attempt to hold a monopoly on the fight for broader tolerance and acceptance of individuals of all types. We should come with a message not just more tolerance for a particular community, but that we want to include everyone in the greater community of individuals who can participate in social and economic institutions to all our benefit. We must make real front line efforts to advance these values through education and volunteering, and help craft the norms that make society wealthier economically and socially.

Income Equality and Income Mobility – The New Frontier for Libertarians

by Alex Merced

Often times we hear conservative pundits, and the occasional libertarian one, respond to social and economic critiques concerning income equality with a dismissive tone. They will say it doesn’t matter as long as there is mobility or “equality of opportunity.” However, recent studies make it clear that there is a  correlation between economic equality and mobility. So how do you make an argument for the free market in light of this data? Some, such as libertarian philosopher/economist Roderick Long, have already begun attempting to have a deeper libertarian discussion about equality, and at least about what kind of equality libertarians should be concerned with. Libertarians don’t need to shy away from discussing economic equality because there is a compelling case to be made that economic equality has plenty to do with a free, or at least a freer, market.

Before arguing the case one must discuss the causal direction in this relationship between equality and mobility (assuming there is one). Does more equality lead to more mobility? Or does more mobility lead to more equality? The answer to this question should lead to very distinct policy views. Progressives, through their policies of redistribution to create equality, argue that equality will create mobility. I would contend that this is putting the cart before the horse. Increasing mobility would lead to more equality. Thus, policies of redistribution are not needed if mobility can be repaired.

In economics there is a theoretical condition of “Perfect Competition.” This is a situation where so many firms compete over the potential earnings in a particular sector that those firms inadvertently evenly distribute those earnings. Labor markets are similar. Higher wages will attract more participants which, over time, will result in reducing the amount of earnings each individual makes because the total earnings is split among more workers. This result is another sort of equality. The implication is that if wages aren’t being distributed more evenly that must mean something is prohibiting or limiting the participation/competition in that market for wealth (profits from your enterprise, earnings from your investments, or wages from work).

In reality, there can be many societal, geographical, and cultural reasons why certain wealth markets may not be as competitive as we’d like, but some of the strongest barriers come in the form of interventions in the market. Reducing the ability for people to participate reduces an individual of a lower economic condition’s ability to have upward mobility and also reduces an individual of a higher economic condition’s downward mobility. Upward and downward mobility are equally important (you have to be able to lose from bad choices and gain from good ones or the market mechanism loses much of its effect). Let’s take a look at different wealth markets and discuss some of the conditions reducing competition in them.

Wealth Market # 1 – Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is one way people can elevate their economic status. Anything that increases the costs of entrepreneurship in time and money will have a disproportionate effect on small entrepreneurs (as they are less likely to have the time and money to pay these costs). Some of the biggest costs in running a business are the legal and accounting costs. An ever growing complex legal and tax system only make these costs greater regardless of the absolute size of the tax bill or legal fine (because of the amount of billable hours paid to accountants/lawyers to guide through the complexity).

These costs may make some businesses less profitable or slow down their growth, but, most disturbingly, they discourage potential entrepreneurs from throwing their hat in the ring to begin with. The answer is a simple one that people across the board can get behind, simplification. While I’m all for lowering taxes which would make the costs of entrepreneurship lower, simplifying the tax and legal codes so that people can effectively participate without huge legal/accounting overhead would encourage more entrepreneurship. It would also free up the firms resources to be used for things such as improving the product, decreasing prices, or even higher wages for those involved in production of the good or service. Keep it simple stupid.

Wealth Market #2 – Capital Investment

Another way of developing wealth is to take wealth you have from your small business or job and invest it into capital either in equity (owning property or stocks) or via debt (lending money or buying bonds). Buying equity/ownership in companies early in their life cycle is often where some of the largest growth in wealth occurs, and it would be people of a lower economic status who can benefit most from that dynamic (of course more risk, more reward). In an effort to reduce the risks to the common man, laws like Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 were passed to make publicly traded companies more transparent. While access to information to people who are investing their capital can lead to better investment decisions, the costs of preparing this information fell on the company (which is fine, but many of standards can arguably so stringent that the costs increase may be less than reasonable). Essentially, Sarbanes Oxley brought at least an appearance of transparency of public markets in exchange for higher accounting and auditing costs, higher legal costs, and higher cost for executive pay for public companies (more liability is placed on executives so it is sensible that they’d ask to be compensated for the risk).

With these higher costs most new businesses decide to raise money in private markets first (where only wealthy “accredited” investors can participate). As a result, companies that issue IPOs (initial public offerings) are often more mature compared the plethora of IPOs we saw in the 90’s. (While some companies fell prey to the bubble, many people were able to grow their wealth more efficiently since they were able to invest in companies earlier in their life cycle.) The problem is, if companies are not available to the public for investment until later in their life cycle, most of the growth in wealth is made exclusively for the already wealthy while the public is left with the scraps of growth. (Less risk, Less Reward).

To the credit of lawmakers, this has not been ignored and the JOBS act was primarily passed to deal with much of this issue, but layering a complex law over another may result in just increasing legal costs which offsets any savings from simplified accounting costs.

Wealth Market #3 – Skilled Labor

The reality of markets is that the demand for labor is constantly changing, not only the quantity but also the skills and knowledge demanded (Cobblers are of course are still in huge demand still, right?). This can cause what’s often known as structural unemployment (unemployment due to skills of the labor force not matching the skills demanded by firms looking for labor). The people in the most dire circumstances, as previously mentioned, have the least money and time to acquire new skills to enter a changing labor market, so of course increasing costs of attaining skills will disproportionately punish those less able to pay those costs and reward those who can (often people who are “better off”). Here a few of the ways these costs increase:

– Compulsory licensing requirements will often result in months of studying full time to pass exams just to be allowed to work in a particular field (The Institute of Justice has done a lot of work on Compulsory Licensing). While making sure people are qualified to do particular jobs is a good thing, most, if not all, licensing requirements are less about competence and more about making workers aware of the ever expanding regulations of their new field of work (essentially the result of complex laws).

– The cost of higher education is primarily the result of the diversion of credit into the education market. Making it easy to borrow money for education has reduced the incentive for education institutions to rethink the way they price their product (why do you pay the same tuition for all degrees despite the huge variation of potential income they provide?) and for students to think about how they finance their education (there probably is a kickstarter like site for tuition now, but one probably would have existed sooner). Aside from distorting the whole pricing mechanism for education, this diversion of credit also means less credit for other types of investment. This may affect the quantity of work for those graduates with huge debts.The cost is currently so high people don’t get do overs. If education pricing was more sane people could afford to go back if their first program didn’t necessarily offer them the income they expected or hoped for.

Conclusion

The ability for people to be upwardly mobile depends on their ability to participate in wealth markets, and the ability for the wealthy incumbent class to be downwardly mobile depends on the ability for others to compete with them in wealth markets. If wealth markets are more difficult to enter, then those at the bottom fall further behind and those at the top get further ahead. This creates the inequality we see today. So essentially, a more free market, when properly understood, can offer a clear path to a more equal or more “fair” distribution of wealth without the use of intervention and intrusions of government.