In our last post, we explored how many frustrating market situations aren’t examples of capitalism failing, but rather of capitalism being prevented from working through cronyism and regulatory capture. This raises an important question: If excessive government regulation creates problems, does that mean we should have no rules at all?
Not quite. The issue isn’t regulation itself. It’s who does the regulating and how it happens.
Consider healthcare, which perfectly illustrates our point about heavily regulated industries. It’s plagued by sky-high prices, limited options, and often poor patient satisfaction. It’s also one of America’s most heavily regulated sectors.
At the federal level alone, healthcare providers navigate a maze of regulatory statutes—the Affordable Care Act, HIPAA, HITECH, and more. Then there are secondary factors, like FDA and DEA regulations on medications, to say nothing of state-level requirements for licensing, permitted areas of care, and even where, when, and how many facilities can be built through Certificate of Need laws.
Of course, we all want healthcare that’s high-quality, safe, and reliable. We want effective medicines with minimal side effects and clean, accessible facilities. But what we’re actually getting with all this regulation is astronomical costs, bureaucratic obstacles, drug shortages, and fewer choices.
This disconnect points to a crucial misunderstanding: the assumption that “regulation” has to mean “government regulation.” In reality, there’s another powerful regulatory force: the market itself.
In freely functioning markets, businesses are continuously regulated by consumer choices and competitor actions. When you have genuine options and the freedom to take your business elsewhere, companies must work hard to earn your dollars by offering fair prices and decent quality.
Take grocery shopping as an example. Supermarkets maintain relatively consistent pricing and quality standards not because a government agency inspects every pepper and pear, but because shoppers would simply go elsewhere if produce is overpriced or subpar. This invisible hand of market regulation works remarkably well in industries where competition is allowed to flourish.
The paradox is that the less a market is restricted by government, the more tightly it’s regulated by market forces. Conversely, excessive government involvement often weakens the market’s natural regulatory mechanisms.
None of this means removing all oversight. Basic rules preventing fraud or deliberate harm and ensuring transparency are necessary. But these should be applied evenly, creating a framework for competition rather than a labyrinth of barriers that strengthen cartelized methods of care.
The choice facing everyday consumers isn’t between regulation and no regulation. It’s between centralized regulation through government mandates and distributed regulation through millions of individual choices in an open marketplace. We never have truly “unregulated” markets; we just have different kinds of regulation. The question is: Which form works better for achieving the outcomes we actually want?
Learn more about capitalism here.
