You can't make make this up: the government has decided to introduce new credit laws to punish "dodgy lenders". Not only does every lender now have to be licenced which in itself adds operating costs and red tape, but they're also subjected to laws requiring them to let borrowers "...request a variation to their credit contract if they suffered financial hardship." It's good to see that a voluntary contract between two parties is now worthless in this country. What's next, laws against usury?

It's always the same with the government: if the existing regulation doesn't work then just add yet another layer that strips even more liberties, adds more red tape, increases the costs for private enterprise and ultimately hurts the consumer, the very people they're trying to "protect". As interest rates rise thanks to cumbersome regulation and the inflation of the money supply, watch the government get even more heavy-handed in the loan industry. They will probably condemn lenders for charging "too much", like they can possibly determine what is "too much" or "fair" without the market's price mechanism. Then they'll force down rates, banks will stop lending (they'll probably simply invest themselves) and the politicians will "fight" the huge underground consumer loan industry they created that doesn't take your house, it takes your fingers.

The banks don’t prey on the poor. They offer them a service; no one is forcing them to agree to it. The price is right for them at the time they take the money, that’s perfectly legal. The right to buy or not to buy is vital to economic well-being and, of course, to personal liberty. Individuals need to be responsible for themselves and try to avoid the losses that result from mistakes. If people are constantly bailed out, the loss comes out of the public purse (or the lenders) and they are relieved of personal responsibility. They can then waste and lose just as much as their inherent laziness may dictate!

Remove all of the banking and lending regulation and allow the free market and competition to work. We're on a slippery slope to a place no one wants to go (politicians excluded) and these do-gooders who think they're saving the world are leading the charge, systematically removing individual liberties and freedom as they go. As Ayn Rand said, we support the smallest minority of them all: the individual.

Every day we see examples of people automatically resorting to the law and the cold hard fist of government regulation at the first opportunity without even considering that perhaps, just maybe, they should simply take some personal responsibility for themselves. In this example, I’m speaking of a report released today that "...reveals that more than 50 per cent of people surveyed [survey of 800 adults] support a ban on junk food advertising that targets children". Not only that but apparently 9 out of 10 people surveyed want more government regulation associated with the "...use of toys and cartoon characters as advertising tools". What I want to know is why are people always so willing to give up more and more personal liberties to achieve their own selfish, subjective goals? Who decides where the endless regulation ends; at what point do we cease trying to control people as if they're nothing but mindless robots who can't make choices for themselves? This brings me to a statement by the Director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, Mike Daube, who says that "...the health of children needs to come before profits",

"This survey puts the junk food industry on notice that it has to reduce the vast amount of promotion that is just swamping us," he said.

"Any survey that tells you that over 90 per cent of people want action surely has to tell the junk food industry this the time to back off."

The problem is that just because the majority of people in a survey by the Obesity Coalition (one can’t but wonder how the questions where phrased and what the demographic of the people surveyed was) want more regulation doesn’t mean it’s the correct policy. As Mises would say, that a fact is deemed true by the majority does not prove its truth. Also, wouldn’t the only logical way to protect kids completely from ‘junk food’ be to either ban the products altogether or resort to the method the Soviets used and simply ban any kind of advertising or marketing, with just generic products remaining? Those issues aside, let’s examine this a bit further.

One, advertising does not possess the coercive power that Mr. Daube thinks it does; it can’t force products on the children of the world. Advertising is not selling; it’s a mere statement of words. When on the one hand, selling a product to a child without the parent’s consent or contrary to the parent’s wishes constitutes a violation of the parent’s rights (as legal guardians), statements of words - provided they do not constitute fraud - do not violate individual rights. Therefore, the mere statement of words, including statements used in advertisements, should be free of legal restraint.

Two, it should be the parents responsibility as to what their children should and should not do and not that of the state. The parents are the ones who are responsible for their children. They raise them until they’re able to take care of themselves and in the process they are responsible for what their children eat, what they wear, what they do before and after school, what they watch on television and what they buy in stores. If parents don’t like what their children are watching on television, then it’s their responsibility to turn it off. If parents don’t like or approve of what their children are buying, it’s their responsibility to stop such behaviour, certainly not the governments.

Three, in a free market no marketer or advertiser can survive without two key values: favourable word-of-mouth communication and repeat purchasers. These are derived from providing a quality product and engaging in honest dealings and result in goodwill or a favourable reputation for the product or business. It’s the competition for this reputation that protects consumers from unscrupulous, devious and manipulative advertisers and salesmen. An excellent reputation is something every business strives to achieve – it takes years to earn, by satisfying customers repeatedly through honest dealings and quality products. Not only that, but if the state regulators didn’t intervene, I’m positive there would exist far more ‘independent regulators’, private enterprises that test foods and give them their ‘stamp of approval’, providing an indicator for customers (there are examples of this already, although for them to work properly they have to be free of political and regulatory interference – we don’t want a repeat of the debacle that was the rating agencies involved in the financial crisis!).

Finally, no one is "forcing" these kids (or rather, their parents) to buy these products. To suggest that man is nothing more than a mindless automaton that responds only to impulses and possesses no free will is absurd. People are free to choose whether to accept or reject a product by a company and don’t need some greater authority imposing their will, their own subjective values, on others.

Contrary to what Mr. Daube believes, the profit motive is the best way to improve the health of our children, not regulation, for all parents need to do is adjust their buying preferences towards healthier products and the producers, the entrepreneurs, will respond accordingly to fill this void. This is because, despite the best efforts of the government to prevent it, the capitalist mode of production excels in supplying the ever changing demands of consumers with more, better and cheaper goods in line with their preferences. If 9 out of 10 people did indeed want junk food advertisers to cease targeting their children, they should simply stop buying their products. Forcefully imposing your will on others through the use of government is never the correct means of achieving a desired end and will only result in further destructions of liberty and freedom down the road.

Is anyone surprised? Perth taxi drivers decided to protest a minor weakening of their state-created and enforced monopoly of the roads,

About 40 taxi drivers have a held a stop work meeting at Perth Airport to protest against the State Government's decision to extend a trial of peak period taxis.

The previous government instigated the year-long trial which allowed more cabs on the road at peak hour on week day mornings.

Last week the Government agreed to extend the trial for another year, but reduce the number of peak period plates allowed on the road each day by half.

A Spokesman for the Taxi Industry Forum, Stephen Satchell, says peak period plates do work, but they need to be specific to weekends and areas like Northbridge and Fremantle.

"Tourism is down, business is down, our economy is going down, and our Minister has put more taxis on," he said.

"It doesn't make sense." -- Source

You're right Mr. Satchell, it doesn't make sense. There is no reason at all why the current taxi drivers should have a monopoly on the Perth market, one that's protected by threat of force (by that I mean government guns/prison). All it does is distort the market with the end result being poor service for the consumer. Anyone who's had the displeasure of dealing with the Perth taxi monopoly on a Friday or Saturday night can sympathise with this argument.

We need to deregulate the industry, abolish 'taxi plates' and allow any entrepreneur who wants to compete for fares with the big boys his right to do so. These 'peak period plates' are the perfect example of government creating a 'solution' (I wonder how many taxpayer dollars were spent devising and now regulating them) to a government created 'problem'. It's perverse.