Does Government Regulation Make Us Safe?

by | Dec 2, 2014

Proper protection of individual rights by government and private licensing and certification programs would make us safer (100% safety for fallible and mortal beings is impossible)—no regulations and government inspectors needed.

When government regulates and licenses daycares, restaurants, taxicabs, banks, other businesses, and physicians, we can rest assured that their operations and products are safe and no harm will come to us. Or so many people believe, as the woman I heard declaring on the radio that she would not get on an airplane unless it was inspected by government.

For example, many municipal governments in Europe and Canada are finding ways to ban the ride-sharing service Uber, in the name of public safety. Only government-licensed taxi drivers can be trusted to drive safely and not to gouge their customers—the government sets “fair” rates, after all. Presumably, private companies like Uber want to maximize profits at the cost of their customers’ safety and by charging them more. (Curiously, Uber has an excellent safety record—it screens its drivers —and the cost of using Uber is 40 to 50% lower for any given ride than using a government-regulated taxicab). Will banning Uber and other ride-sharing businesses make people safer and protect them from unscrupulous drivers? I argue no.

Another example of government’s alleged protection of us is the regulation of workplace safety. There has been a couple of unfortunate deaths due to workplace accidents in my home town Calgary recently. In response, the provincial government has vowed to tighten monitoring of industrial work sites by hiring more inspectors to enforce safety regulations. Will workers be safer when even more government inspectors are enforcing workplace safety regulations? I argue no.

Despite many people’s contrary beliefs, government regulation is not making daycares, restaurant meals, physicians’ services, airlines, construction sites, buildings, food at grocery stores, or any other product or business any safer. Accidents still happen at daycares. People still get food poisoning from restaurant meals or from food purchased at grocery stores. Physicians still misdiagnose and mistreat their patients. Accidents involving airlines or construction sites haven’t ended since government regulation. Shoddily built or unsafe buildings still get erected. Human nature makes errors, willful negligence, and even intentional harming of others possible. Government regulation never ended these problems, and increasing regulation and enforcement is not going to end them, either.

If we can’t depend on the government regulations to keep us safe, what can be done? Accidents and errors can be reduced by proper training and safety precautions. Any employer that does not provide those is to be avoided, and those that neglect their workers’ or customers’ health and safety can be sued. It clearly is not in an employer’s self-interest to be negligent, as it is not in the interest of the daycare owner to neglect the safety of the children, or in the interest of the restaurant owner or the grocer to harm the health of his customers.

Businesses may not recognize their self-interest and they may violate the individual rights of their employees or customers, such as their right to life. It is the role of the government to protect individual rights. However, that is not done by increasing regulations and the number of government inspectors (in fact, these measures violate businesses’ right to liberty). To properly protect our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, the government must strongly enforce the existing laws that penalize any form of initiation of physical force or fraud. That alone would act as much stronger deterrent to the would-be violators.

Some businesses clearly can benefit from licensing or certification—particularly those that can have a significant impact on their customers’ and employees’ health and well-being: daycares, pharmaceutical companies, medical clinics, purveyors of food, construction companies, and others performing hazardous work, for example. However, it is not the role of the government to impose licensing or certification requirements on companies and run such programs. Licensing and certification programs should be voluntary and privately run. Companies in industries were licensing or certification is deemed necessary or beneficial can jointly establish standards, for example through an industry association. A third-party private licensing and certification agencies (with a clear accountability to the industry association) can be commissioned to issue licenses and certificates to those companies meeting the standards. Customers and employees can decide whether to trade with companies that have been licensed and certified or with those who have not.

Proper protection of individual rights by government and private licensing and certification programs would make us safer (100% safety for fallible and mortal beings is impossible)—no regulations and government inspectors needed.


Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.


  1. Some would argue of ‘the fox watching the henhouse’ with ‘industry association’.

  2. Tax-evading law-breaking monopolies like UBER will save us all !
    Just “trust” these corporations, I tell ya !!!

  3. Not if it’s a third party association. The self-interest of such an association to be objective would be to increase its credibility and therefore the likelihood that business within that industry would utilize it’s certification services.

  4. …or don’t trust them. That’s, you know, up to the individual consumer.

  5. It’s so frustrating that the solution is so simple but not accepted.

    All actions are allowed except those involving the initiatory use of force, threats of force, or fraud.

    Government authority should be limited to the retaliatory use of force.

  6. Proposed 28th amendment

    Article 1
    No person may initiate the use of force, threats of force, or fraud against any other person’s self or property.

    Article 2
    Force may be used against those who violate Article 1.

  7. With pvt. entities like Underwriter’s Lab. or Consumer Reports, who put their arguments up to us to decide, do we need the Consumer Product Safety Comm. and other gvt. entities to FORCE us to give in and give up? Do those gvt. entities perform a legitimate function of gvt.? Mike Kevitt

  8. Your proposed 28th. Amend. is already in the Decl. of Indep. Such an amendment would no more be heeded than are the same provisions in the Decl. of Indep. The minds of the overwhelming majority of people everywhere in the world, in our age, are too badly twisted to accept solutions.

    But, for the few whose minds are sufficiently intact, it’s good for them to come up with solutions and to share and discuss them, and to have them at the ready if the chance comes to establish them and make them stick, permanently. Mike Kevitt

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 9,000 articles online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Pin It on Pinterest