Glenn "Michael Williams Is My Best Friend" Reynolds points to a David Carr analysis of an Independent article on the British fruit black market. Quite interesting, and also a perfect illustration of how over-regulation helps big business stifle competetion.
From the Independent article:
The Plant Varieties and Seeds Act (1964) makes these tomatoes forbidden fruit - well, at least the seeds from which they are grown.From David Carr:According to the act, anyone wanting to sell the seeds of a fruit or vegetable must first register the variety on a National List. Before registration, it must be tested to ensure it is "distinct, uniform and stable", and a fee must be paid. Sadly for amateur growers, these fees add up to nearly £1,000, in the case of tomatoes, plus an annual renewal fee of £185. There are no exceptions, no grants for amateur growers, and it is illegal for anyone to sell the seeds of unregistered fruit or, by implication, the fruit itself.
It's fair to say Defra doesn't police the law with much conviction, but the multinationals are always watching. In 1998 a company that illegally marketed grass seed was successfully prosecuted under the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964. It was fined a total of £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £7,964.
An instructive tale. For non-UK readers, 'Defra' is the Department of Farming and Rural Affairs and it is clealy not above moving to protect the interest of the market-hogging corporations. We should never overlook that fact that some large business concerns are not interested in the market they are interested in controlling the market and they use the apparatus of state to do so. Regulatory regimes often result from the connivance between big business and the state.Apply this to some of America's current business issues. Who benefits from over-regulation of electricity generation? Who benefits from regulation of education? Who benefits from environmental regulations? If you answered "the public!" to any of these, you're sadly mistaken.
Not sure what the point of this post was. It's fairly obvious that what is needed is *proper* regulation -- neither over- nor under-regulation. (The example given in the post here is just *bad* regulation.) The debate, of course, is over what constitutes proper regulation.
I mean, who's going around claiming that over-regulation is a good thing? What exactly is your point here? :)
It's all in the definition of "over-regulation" I suppose. Such as with education.