How the State destroys

Zoning, licenses, legal inspections, and building codes destroy entrepreneurship and competition. So it goes in Newmarket. The owner is fighting back.

I'm not quibbling over whether this coffee shop has the right or wrong license. I'm arguing the very existence of the license. Why in the world does the State need to extort money from someone to run a business? Well, t's a nice tax stream for bureaucrats. And, it's a good way for people to use the strong arm of the law to knock down competition in the market.

In the world of voluntary exchange, all you have to ask is: is this business turning a profit? If so, it is satisfying consumers' demands. All these legal hoops reduce consumer satisfaction by increasing the cost of doing business.

"But wait," you say, "think of the children! If not for the State, we'd all be eating e.coli from dirty dishes!" Unlikely, for at least two reasons. First, even a whiff of foul play is terrible advertising--I am curious to know what damage the linked article above might do. Second, without government regulation, people wouldn't be so complacent about assuming that food is safe to eat. There probably would be a great demand for voluntary consumer reporting. In fact there already is: tripadvisor, yelp, google reviews, facebook reviews...all pro bono work, by the way, with no cut of the tax loot.

We don't need no stinkin' State.

On the market, there are no shortages

Newmarket has a water shortage. To be clear, a shortage occurs only when there is a legal price ceiling that is below the natural, market price of water. As such, shortages are induced by governments. On the market, when the supply of a good is limited, its price rises and people conserve the good naturally. For some reason, this is considered evil (those nasty price gougers!), but it’s the only peaceful way to allocate goods. And, in fact, it is beneficial because a higher price will be an incentive for more producers to increase the supply overall. 

In the case of government-owned water, however, when there is a “shortage,” the residents are the culprits. They are the bad people who water their lawns too much or wash their gas guzzling cars, or whatever. It’s a bit odd how it is considered evil to charge a higher price for a good, yet it is not evil to prohibit, under the force of law, use of the good.  

See Murray Rothbard and Bob Wenzel on this matter.

Say no to a charter

Unsurprising: Dan "Beautify Downtown" Chartrand is interested in making the Exeter government more powerful. The local editorial news group believes the same thing. 

Unfortunately, their value judgments sneak in every which way. They assume that a streamlined government is a "good." But, the goal is to make government spending and government make-work  easier enact. This, to many, is a “bad.” More government spending means more resources wasted on unproductive projects. For sure, all the cronies who get cushy government contracts benefit, but not the taxpaying peons or the legitimately private businesses that can't compete with government contracts. Why should their subjective valuation of government bureaucracy be higher valued than someone else's?

A charter would exploit "Exeter’s strengths and weaknesses." Huh? Is this talking about individuals' strengths and weaknesses?  People can decide for themselves how best to produce and consume. Exeter residents might work in Newmarket and vice versa. So what? If so, it shouldn't matter what some political body does. (Of course, an oft-stated goal in such economic "policy" is to "increase the tax base." Read: expropriate and distribute more loot to make buying votes easer. Whenever someone talks about strengthening the "Town" or the "Community" or whatever, always ask: cui bono?)

No, the opposite action better promotes prosperity and peace: decrease Exeter governmental power. Sell off “town-owned” lands and parks. Cede ownership of the roads to the storefronts, shipping companies, and other homesteaders. Eliminate all zoning laws. Private property is the only way. The Exeter government should not (and logically cannot) run in an "orderly" fashion. (To me, this goal reeks of the goal of silencing spirited debate and vitriol against Exeter’s government bureaucrats.) 

By the way, the Newmarket government just raised the sewer rates for the town’s residents. How streamlined.