Why It Matters; R. Clites

Their analysis leads us toward why it matters. It matters because of various types of governmental meddling in economic ac tivity. Contrary to what we are told by political leaders and others, governments do not engage in or promote economic activity. Governments only place restrictions and barriers. Were it not for government intervention, trade would be free throughout North Amer ica, indeed throughout the world. Move ment of people, capital, and goods would Professor Clites teaches at Tusculum College in Tennessee. 4. Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870). 5. Michael Pierone, "Requiring Citizens to Do Evil," The Freeman (July 1993), p. 261. 6. "Militias," p. A8; N. Stephan Kinsella, "Legislation and Law in a Free Society," The Freeman (September '1995), pp. 561, 563. 7. Pierone, note 5, p. 262. 8. Ibid. 9. Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), pp. 72-79.

10. Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 153. 11. Ibid., pp. 153--54. 12. Ibid., p. 153. 13. Ibid., p. 159. take place more efficientlywere government not constantly meddlingin commerce. Com petition would equalize production costs. Comparative advantage would determine what would be produced in a given location. Efficiency would be greatly enhanced and levels of living would rise dramatically. But can a nation the size of Quebec "go it alone"? Of course it can. When I visited Luxembourg and even tiny Lichtenstein I observed some of the highest levels of living anywhere in the world, certainly higher than those in large nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. People who have traveled to Andorra and little Monaco have told me that people in both of those minute nations are quite prosperous. In fact, small countries are often more hospitable to economic ac tivity because their governments are small.

Also they have to recognize the importance of international trade and the need to be competitive. The problem is not that economic activity would be curtailed. The problem is that government does not want to give up any of its power to control. That is the only reason that it matters. 0 THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Warning: OSHA Can Be Hazardous to Your Health by Raymond J. Keating H ow could anyone find fault with a government agency whose stated mis sion is "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources"?1 As is typical with government agencies brandishing impossible missions, the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has become a burdensome regula tory body, seemingly more concerned with pushing paper and imposing fines rather than in establishing safer working environ ments. Indeed, since OSHA's first month in existence in 1970, when it instituted 4,400 job safety and health rules, the agency has played the role of adversary to American business. 2 In reality, the private sector possesses every incentive to maintain a safe and healthy working environment for employ ees. Indeed, beyond a commonly held con cern for one's employees, the financial in centives are substantial. That is, after factoring into the equation lost production and productivity costs, healthcare costs, insurance costs, possible lawsuits, and so on, it is clear that safety pays.