By Selwyn Duke
If I tell you to do something that costs you money, it would be reasonable for you to expect me to cover your costs. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune; so, he who calls the tune should pay the piper.
The government tells us all the time to do things that cost us money -- so I ask you: who should cover those costs? For instance, the government often forces businesses to adopt hiring practices that impact on their ability to turn a profit. It tells us that we can't discriminate in hiring, even when such discrimination would increase profits. For example, I know a female gynecologist who will only hire women to work in her office because her exclusively female clientele is more comfortable dealing with women when tending to such things. OK, you say, fair enough -- this is a very delicate matter. But if her business grew big enough to get on Uncle Sam's radar screen the government might force her to hire some males, assuming it didn't practice a double-standard. If that happened and she lost business, who should cover her losses?
You might say that the above is an unusual example, but that's not true -- lots of businesses are in that boat. Let's say that you own a German restaurant and your market research has demonstrated that you'll have more customers if you strive for authenticity. So, you only want to hire blonde-haired, blue-eyed people to work as servers and busboys. But the government would penalize you for doing this and force you to integrate your workforce, thereby costing you business. Who should compensate you for your lost income?
Or, maybe I own a mail-order business and I've determined that about five percent of those who call my 800 number hang up when they hear that the receptionist has an accent, and for this reason I don't want to hire people who have accents. If the government forces me to, should I be the one who has to suffer the financial burden of its dictate?
The government also mandates what businesses' policies should be in other areas as well. For instance, I might have to spend a lot of extra money to bring my establishment into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Once again I ask you: whose nickel should cover this?
Then we have the anti-smoking law in California that prohibits people from smoking in bars. The fact is though, that a high percentage of people who patronize bars like to smoke, and some just won't go if they can't light up. This costs these bar owners money who should bear the brunt of this loss?
It's possible to stay here all day and provide examples of how the government is our partner in our private matters when it comes to making decisions, but disappears when it's time to pay for the consequences of those decisions. Of course, this happens because of liberals who want to do what they consider to be social good, as long as they don't have to pay for its implementation. This is why it has been said that a liberal will give you the shirt of someone else's back.
Of course, the costs incurred by businesses because of excessive and unjust government regulation are impossible to calculate precisely, and the liberals in government wouldn't step up to the plate and pay them anyway. This is just another reason why the business owner, and not some politician who wants to buy votes, should determine what policies will prevail within his own business. He who pays the piper calls the tune...at least, that's the way it's supposed to be. By the way, there's a name for those who instinctively believe they're not responsible for their decisions and that they shouldn't have to pay for what they want: children.
