A few of my Republican friends think they’ve never met a government regulation on business they didn’t like. If you get one of them started, they’ll rail for hours about all the jobs government regulation supposedly squashes, and every one of them has a piece of anecdotal evidence to back up their claim. Most of my G.O.P. buddies know better than to rant at me about government regulations though, because I’m a liberal Democrat (a 4-letter word in these parts) and I’m one of those folks who think that government regulation of commerce is more of a help than a hindrance. Then, the other day I had an epiphany of sorts, and I thought of a great example to prove my Republican friends’ argument that government regulation squashes jobs.
What job, you ask? Hit man!
If it weren’t for the government’s ban (the strongest regulation possible) on the killing of fellow citizens, a guy (or girl) could probably earn a decent living whacking divorcing spouses, business rivals, the elderly parent who’s holding up the inheritance and the neighborhood bully who’s terrorizing your youngster. I purposely avoided the inclusion of political opponents, but I guess there could be a market there, too. Anyway, my point is – murder statutes kill jobs (pardon the pun)!
Consider what would happen if the government ended its regulation of murder. Tens of thousands of gun and ammunition manufacturing jobs would be created overnight. Security guard positions would mushroom, and let’s not forget the construction industry. Think of the new jobs the economy would add as Americans install bullet-proof glass in their homes and high tech security systems to keep armed outsiders at bay. Funeral directors and cemetery owners would make a killing (another pun I couldn’t resist), and all the haggling over the Second Amendment would disappear overnight.
Of course, there would probably be a few unsavory consequences to the end of government regulation of homicide, but I’m not going to bore anybody with the details, especially given all the jobs we’d be creating. That is the party line, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment