Co-blogger Bryan Caplan had an excellent post on December 1 in which he argued that there is some low-hanging fruit for regulations that could be eliminated. It’s low-hanging in the sense that a strong case can be made for deregulation and that the case could be popular. That doesn’t mean that the deregulatory changes are popular now; instead, they could be made popular if Republicans and even some moderate Democrats step up and make a strong relentless case.
I have more such deregulations to add.
1. Allow liquor to be sold across state lines.
2. Extend the Covid-inspired deregulation of telemedicine, including across state lines.
3. End or curtail asset forfeiture when the person or company whose assets are forfeited is not charged with a crime. (The Institute for Justice has done some excellent work on this. Check out this amazing video. It caused me to get off my duff and send a contribution that’s a little higher than my usual to IJ.)
4. Repeal the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which creates huge hassles for Americans living abroad in return for what appears to be (I’m not sure) very little additional tax revenue.
5. Deregulate shower heads.
I think that with a little more thought, I could easily come up with a dozen more.
How about you? What do you think would be candidates for deregulation that fit two criteria: (1) they would matter for people’s lives, and (2) the proposals are popular or could be made popular with some relentless advocacy?
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Dec 5 2021 at 8:07pm
5b) deregulate faucets.
Those might be able to gain some traction right now as an anti-COVID matter, as low-flow sinks and showers make effective sanitation (eg washing hands) considerably harder.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2021 at 8:09am
We just installed some slow flow faucets in two bathrooms in preparation for selling our house. I noticed little difference in washing my hands. In areas where there is a paucity of water, it makes sense to require these.
Jon Murphy
Dec 6 2021 at 8:11am
Go to GMU (or Syracuse, or any public building) and see the situation. You cannot properly wash one’s hands.
Which does not include Maryland, or most of the West
robc
Dec 6 2021 at 9:41am
Properly pricing water would do the job better without mandates.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2021 at 12:51pm
Pricing water is complicated. In our suburban DC area we pay more for water than in other areas because of water treatment to preserve the Chesapeake Bay. Our bill is both for water coming into the house and water leaving for treatment.
BS
Dec 6 2021 at 1:56pm
Sounds unnecessarily complicated. I doubt the amount of water used for handwashing is more than a rounding error of what goes into drains.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Dec 5 2021 at 10:20pm
Cross state occupational licensing.
Allow auto manufacturers to sell w/o “dealerships.”
Jon Murphy
Dec 6 2021 at 10:22am
I like those a lot
Matthias
Dec 6 2021 at 1:51am
Deregulating shower heads might seem to have obvious popular appeal. But Trump touched that issue, so it might have become hyperpartisan or toxic because of that.
Though I guess Bernie Sanders or so could propose it, just like Nixon could go to China. Not sure.
john hare
Dec 6 2021 at 4:30am
Stop requiring engineering for building construction that meets code. Creates extra costs and delays on construction waiting for an “official” blueprint to be “engineered”. Current personal house waiting months on draftsmen/engineers to do what I could do in a long weekend.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2021 at 8:05am
LOL!!! My late father was a structural engineer and partner in an architecture firm. When he retired he worked for five years for a forensic engineering company in Newport Beach. He would do preliminary reviews of building failures and in 60% of them it was attributable to skirting code requirements.
robc
Dec 6 2021 at 9:42am
I fail to see the problem.
Fail fast is a good result.
zeke5123
Dec 6 2021 at 2:16pm
That which is seen, v that what is unseen.
The first question is how many buildings failed that skirted building regulations? High number? Low number? What was the failure rate for buildings that did not skirt building regulations (e.g., perhaps 60% of buildings skirt building regulations, and therefore there is a base rate failure).
The next question is are there different failure rates of old buildings v new buildings. Let’s assume older buildings are generally worse than newer buildings (maybe not fair — see the Lindy Effect). People skirt building codes to build cheaper. If a new building that skirts building codes is safer compared to an older building, then it is certainly possible that skirting building codes on net is better.
Todd Moodey
Dec 6 2021 at 3:19pm
Very nice!
John hare
Dec 6 2021 at 4:31pm
I don’t see how you are addressing the point. Build to code does not need an engineering stamp to legitimize the obvious. A 24” footer with 3 bars of steel is not concerned with who designed it, just if the size and reinforcement is done correctly. That’s an inspector job that takes 5 minutes not an engineer piling on costs and time.
Daniel B
Dec 6 2021 at 4:32am
Not sure if this counts as a deregulation, but there has to be some constitutional amendment saying that no one making more than a certain threshold (e.g., $500,000) per year can receive any government transfers (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) whatsoever. This would really cut down on the number of transfers. For example, many agricultural subsidies would disappear, since most of them go “to big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soyabeans in states such as Iowa.”
The threshold should surely be lower than $500k per year. But I know some cities such as San Francisco are very expensive places, and a lower limit like $100,000 would kick out some inhabitants who aren’t particularly rich after cost of living is considered.
I don’t know how low the appropriate number to deal with this issue is, so I left some leg room. Inflation could lock out non-rich from aid in the long run so that has to be accounted for in the amendment. And there has to be an exemption for situations where well-off people in theory might die unless they’re allowed to get government aid – for example, after a horrific earthquake or hurricane (although given FEMA’s atrocious track record – consistent with economic theory – this is probably not the best example of the issue).
My amendment proposal is heavily inspired by this excellent column. We’ll get much closer to a free market when people get a lesson in public choice by seeing how much aid goes to rich people. That should hopefully reduce faith in government intervention.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2021 at 8:07am
#1 – I can already go into Washington DC and purchase liquor. Maybe it is not legal but our backward county (Montgomery in Maryland) still has a county controlled and run liquor store operation for spirits (wine and beer can be sold by independent stores).
Alan
Dec 6 2021 at 4:27pm
Beer manufacturers should be able to sell beer direct to buyers.
Gas containers should be allowed to have a high flow spout.
Henri Hein
Dec 6 2021 at 6:19pm
I was going to go with a variant of what Daniel B suggested: cut corporate welfare. It would be popular, and it makes people’s lives better in the long run by reducing future revenue/tax requirements. I also believe it would make corporations more efficient.
Comments are closed.