My newsletter explains that and a few other issues concerning licensing.
It’s the problem of public-choice economics. As I wrote here about a similar problem:
In my phrasing, it’s not much of a choice. I see it as a moral imperative.
What do policymakers choose when they can bestow concentrated big benefits on a single “winner” industry while dispersing the costs across the many? They tend to hear nearly exclusively from the winner industry; why?
- How does the big-winner industry react? They pour money and effort into lobbying; the potential payoff is worth it.
- What about private individuals facing real — but smaller, spread out among so many — costs?The time and effort to fight on their behalf is usually too expensive.
I discussed this imbalance on pages 6–7 of my report on Carolina Cronyism. It takes principled leaders to resist public-choice cronyism. …