Yesterday, I tried to illustrate the value of being able to make our own choices freely... how freedom not only enables each of to maximize our own lifestyles, but that it also is the enabler of all progress. We take risks in order to gain rewards. When our choices are limited, our possible rewards are also limited. The dramatic progress of our young nation was possible only because of the freedom Americans had that allowed them to voluntarily take what were often very hazardous risks. Our history is replete with stories of hardships endured in order to have a better life. Somewhere along the way, we gave up the ghost of our ancestors, and lost our appreciation for free choice.

The examples that hit me most often center on automobiles. I've watched tremendous innovation in autos. New materials, innovative designs, and automation have produced faster, safer, more reliable, and more comfortable cars. What that great industry hasn't been able to provide is cheaper cars. The price of many things we buy has naturally dropped over time. In most cases, the products have gotten better AND cheaper. That's natural in a competitive environment, but no cheap cars. Why?

There is obviously a market for the expensive cars that are being sold, but the market for cheap cars isn't served. The reason is regulation (and taxes). We could design and build very inexpensive cars, but they wouldn't be approved. As manufacturers find ways to improve cars, there is always a push to make those improvements mandatory. Safety regs push designs toward bigger, heavier vehicles that are more costly to operate, service and repair. Environmental regulations push designs toward recyclable materials that are more expensive.

Understand that new features on autos, including safety features, are not created because of regulations. They come from racing technology, and from designers trying to outsell their competition. Such features became available to those buyers who were able and willing to pay for them. By mandating such features, we raise the minimum price out of reach of some buyers, who have to resort to other, poorer forms of transportation. We also reduce future innovation. As long as airbags are required, for example, manufacturers are going to concentrate on improving them, with less concentration on systems that might actually prevent collisions rather than reacting to them.

With regulations, we've taken the choice of owning a new car away from many people. Some of those people will be forced to drive beat-up old junkers instead... cars that are even less safe and will break down more often... often causing a collision.

Every mandate... every use of force... has a downside, and it usually harms those we claim it is to protect.

Let's think about housing. Zoning restrictions, building codes, and property taxes have driven the cost of housing up dramatically, making it far more difficult for many people to buy, and keep homes. As with cars, high-end construction was always available for those willing and able to pay, but cheap is no longer a legal option. Rental housing has followed the same pattern. Given the improvement in materials and construction methods, we should have an abundance of inexpensive housing. We have quite the opposite. Again, those harmed are the poorer members of our society.

Another prime example of eliminating choice in the name of more safety is the regulation of drug production. As I reported in Wonder why health care costs are so high? a recent study demonstrated that we could, by simply reducing regulation, save many thousands of lives, help us to live longer, cut health care costs by 28% or more, and cut prescription drugs cost to one-third of what they are now.

That same study says that without excessive regulation of new drug development, we would have twice as many innovative new drugs as we do now.

Once again... who are the people most hurt by these regulations? Those who are sick, those who are poor, and those on fixed incomes.

Regulations not only cause the most harm to those who can afford it least, and stifle innovation, they cost a mammoth amount of money that could improve our lives in untold ways.

You thought income taxes were bad?

The total cost of compliance with federal regulation has been estimated at $869 billion... more than all the individual income taxes we pay (849 billion), more than the combined profits of all corporations (665 billion), and more than the whole Gross Domestic Product of either Mexico or Canada.

Not sick yet? Add in another $30 billion in tax money that the feds spend just enforcing regulations... then realize that all that doesn't even include state and local regulation.

Aside from the impact on the poorer individuals in our society, regulatory costs also impact smaller businesses more severely. The cost for businesses with fewer than 20 employees is $6,975 per employee, while the cost for large employers is $4,463 per employee. 89% of all businesses have fewer than 20 employees, and they employ 19% of our workforce.

It's virtually impossible to imagine just how prosperous our nation might be if our behemoth government were to be brought under control and cut down to size. I've heard estimates that we would each have 3 times as much wealth as we do now, but I'm inclined to think that it's far more dramatic than that. Government eats up far more than half of what we produce.

I challenge you to look around you and identify any results from it.