One of the things that really stuck in my mind, though, was a comment that individuals need to have the freedom to explore new possibilities, but are prevented by numerous regulations. If I wanted to try to make and sell cheese, for example, I can't just make a small batch in my kitchen, and then take it to the local farmer's market...in the (largely mythical) interest of Public Safety, I need to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stainless steel vats, precise thermometers, and whatnot, and be prepared for the various fines I might face when a random bureaucrat tries to enforce some obscure law.
As a result of thinking about this, I decided it would be fun to write up a "Freedom to Be Small Act", that would go something like this:
WHEREAS individuals need to have the freedom to experiment with new ways to do things, in order to explore possible career paths, and
WHEREAS every small business has the potential of growing into a large one, and many of our largest businesses started out in someone's garage or kitchen, and
WHEREAS bureaucrats, regulations, and zoning laws interfere with this process,
BE IT ENACTED that any small business (defined as a business that has the equivalent of six full-time employees for every 1/6 acre on which that business resides, up to thirty-six employees):
- Shall not be subject to local or State zoning laws, except those that limit noise, fumes, or other noxious behaviors that will interfere with neighbors' enjoyment of property, and shall not be required to obtain a license to pursue business, and
- Shall be free from local and State regulations, and be required to state clearly to their customers, either by sign or by label on their products, that they are not subject to said regulations, and
- Shall not be required to insure themselves against sickness or injury that may result from their product, but may still be held liable for such sickness or injury.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that any such small business, so long as its products are kept within State boundaries, are not subject to the various regulations passed by the United States Congress, nor its many regulatory agencies.I feel as though I've left something out, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment--the napkin I originally wrote this on is still packed away, somewhere...but even if I had the napkin, I still would liked to have taken steps to "bullet-proof" the law. For example, I didn't want "retaining a lawyer" or "contracting an accountant" or even "hiring a plumber" to count as "employing" someone, for purposes of this law, except where it's a clear part of the business model. In any case, this is the gist of it!
Now, if only I could find a sympathetic representative...
What about zoning laws that control for fire & rescue access?
ReplyDeleteThat would be another example of a detail I hadn't thought about, that I would like to iron out. I mostly want to do away with the zoning laws that keep a small farmer from slaughtering a small number of cows on his own farm, or from putting up a small band saw as a saw-mill...or from someone setting up a shop in his garage for building and/or repairing cars.
ReplyDeleteThe ideal would be to set up something general, rather than make minute exceptions to every rule! It's the small details that overwhelm an individual.
"FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that any such small business, so long as its products are kept within State boundaries, are not subject to the various regulations passed by the United States Congress, nor its many regulatory agencies."
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I wouldn't limit it to only intrastate commerce. With internet sales and easy shipping, many small businesses actually do more business outside of their state than in. Say, for instance, a small custom holster maker who does most of his business on the web. In fact, it's often easier to have a pure internet store than a physical store.
Pretty good idea, though.
Although I agree with you about that portion, I have a reason for it: to emphasize that the Federal Government should leave small businesses alone.
ReplyDeleteI recently heard about a bricklaying business that literally consisted of a man and his nephew, being hit by OSHA fines. If such a small operation is "interstate commerce", then what the heck isn't?
"Although I agree with you about that portion, I have a reason for it: to emphasize that the Federal Government should leave small businesses alone."
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean, but I don't see how limiting it to intrastate commerce creates that emphasis. It could be me - I do have an embarrassing tendency to miss the glaringly obvious, while picking up on the deep subtle issue that the obvious point actually addresses. But I would think that specifically stating that the exemption covers interstate and intrastate commerce would make it a stronger emphasis.
"If such a small operation is "interstate commerce", then what the heck isn't?"
According to the feds? Nothing. When SCOTUS ruled that growing your own grain for your personal use - not even giving it away, just using it for yourself and your immediate family - fell under the Interstate Commerce Clause because it meant you weren't buying wheat that was sold across state lines (thus having a "substantial effect on interstate commerce), they essentially threw out any and all limits to the Federal government's powers. It's just taking a while to reach the full consequences of that decision.