Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

Frederic Bastiat Boldly Spoke Truth to Power Armed with Reason, Purpose, Pride and Clarity

/in /by

Inequality, tariffs, public education, social media, cronyism, democratic socialism, climate science, racism, minimum wages, and social justice are hot topics in 21st century America. There is nothing new about this, these issues perplexed early 19th century France, and no one handled them more succinctly and courageously than Poetic Justice Warrior Frederic Bastiat.

As an economic journalist, Bastiat stood alone among the economists of his time for his staunch defense of capitalism and his brilliant attacks on socialism. His sarcasm shines a bright light on his singular contribution to the cause of personal liberty. For example, when candle makers demanded economic protection from the government, Bastiat demanded that government ban sunlight exploitation. According to renowned economist Henry Hazlitt,

The petition of the candlemakers is devastating. It is a flash of pure genius, a reductio ad absurdum that can never be exceeded, sufficient in itself to assure Bastiat immortal fame among economists.

Another enduring achievement of Bastiat’s is the Broken Window Fallacy. Remember this as you listen to doofus pundits talk about the economic benefits of rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Dorian.

The Great Communicator

Although Bastiat was not an original economic theorist, he was a talented proponent of the free market ideas of classical economists Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say. He lived and published in a revolutionary time of socialist takeover in France, during which Bastiat declared, “Pick up the torch of Say’s Law,” a reference to the virtues of production and markets. As economist Walter Williams instructs,

Bastiat’s greatest contribution is that he took the discourse out of the ivory tower and made ideas on liberty so clear that even the unlettered can understand them and statists cannot obfuscate them. Clarity is crucial to the moral superiority of personal liberty.

In his signature treatise titled The Law, Bastiat brought clarity to the concept of legal plunder, “See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Here Bastiat rightfully considers law to be a negative concept,

The purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is only achieved when injustice is absent.

This is fundamental to the only morally defensible role government should play in human affairs (and an essential lesson that we can begin to teach children through the Tuttle Twins books series including The Law).  The opposite is when it acts as a positive force –

When the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes on men a regulation of labor or a method of  education, it substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills. Intelligence becomes a useless prop. They lose their liberty and property.

Bastiat is explaining that government is by definition, force. Government cannot regulate the economy or transfer wealth without organizing injustice “to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.” This is his lure of socialism, it is generalized; and this is the postmodern philosophy of today’s administrative state, what Bastiat would describe as “philanthropic tyranny.”

Democratic Socialism

Here Bastiat presages the inane mentality of today’s social justice warriors and our current welfare state:

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. Perhaps the politician should ask whether this has not been caused by old conquests, but by more recent legal plunder. Would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility?

This is Bastiat’s Law of Responsibility, meaning dignity. Individualism’s precept is that dignity must be earned, it is internal. Socialism’s precept is that dignity is external, that society grants it. The Great Society programs of the 1960s created a multigenerational phenomenon of government dependence, economic stagnation, and loss of dignity for its victims. And legal plunder has many names: “subsidies, progressive taxation, public schools, minimum wages, and so on, all constitute socialism.”

As Bastiat explains, “the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between clay and the potter.”

Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? The task would be sufficient enough.

As Jordan Peterson says to today’s social justice warriors, “Make up your room!” Almost all of us prefer not to be the clay, and Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, in his classic The Road to Serfdom, brilliantly explains the type of character that is attracted to be potters of humans.

Seer and Soothsayer

Bastiat also commented on the exploitation of science to justify legal plunder. He found official organizations petitioning the government demanding that “science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade, but especially taught from the viewpoint of laws that regulate industry.” Climate science?

If we don’t learn history we are doomed to repeat it. Bastiat and America’s founders knew this. As Walter Williams explains, “No finer statement of natural rights have been made than those found in the Declaration of Independence or The Law.” Bastiat expounds,

Look at the United States. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence, there appears to be no country in the world where social order rests on a firmer foundation.

And economic vitality. However in 1850, the year of his death, Bastiat said of America,

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property. It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime, a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World, should be the only issue which can lead to the ruin of the Union.

Ten years later, a brutal civil war over slavery ravaged America. Much like the American revolution succeeded where the French and Russian revolutions failed, America survived the Civil War to become better than ever. Its founding principles were applied to freed slaves, and eventually women’s suffrage. The three decades immediately following the Civil War are perhaps the greatest testament to political and economic freedom in all of history. But what about Europe?

And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States, where the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs, what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

The consequence was World War I. Humanity flourished in the century preceding “the war to end all wars.” Yet the life-sapping philosophy of the progressives’ war and welfare state eclipsed the aestheticism of romantic art led by Ludwig van Beethoven, the socio-economics of capitalism championed by Jean-Baptiste Say, and the ethics of self-creation demonstrated by Frederick Douglass.

Essential to the 19th century miracle was sound money – currency convertible into gold. Soon after WWI began, convertibility was suspended, and the deficit financed bloodbath lasted for years instead of weeks. The ensuing hyperinflation and philosophy of self-sacrifice and obedience set the stage for WWII.

As Poetic Justice Warrior Lisa VanDamme taught us, erasing the heights of virtue and depths of depravity from education will mire society in a scandal of ignorance. Frederic Bastiat taught us that objective law is essential for preserving liberty. “Legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it. It erases from our consciences the distinction between justice and injustice.” For Poetic Justice Warriors, “law is justice when its organized force is confined to suppressing injustice.”

 

 

When Protectionism Jeopardizes the Privacy Rights of Entrepreneurs

/in /by

Protectionism just reached new heights in Chicago and it’s jeopardizing the Fourth Amendment rights of entrepreneurs. Following the rise in popularity of food trucks and at the behest of brick and mortar establishments, the city of Chicago enacted new laws that required food trucks to be at least 200 feet from any physical business.

Brick and mortar retail establishments feared having to compete with the food trucks, which is how this entire ordinance came about, to begin with. And to be sure, they should be worried. Food trucks, in addition to online retailers, have completely changed the marketplace with their non-traditional means of conducting business. It’s not uncommon for food trucks to form connections with consumers over social media platforms like Twitter. Not to mention, the “pop-up” culture has made roaming retail all the more exciting for young consumers.

But rather than change their own business models in order to create stiffer competition, Chicago retailers have chosen instead to ask the city government to create silly protectionist policies. In the case of the new “200 feet” ordinance, the city reasoned that if food trucks were forced to keep their distance, consumers might not be “lured” away by physical retailers. 

And as ridiculous as this may sound, the situation actually gets much worse.

In order to enforce this law, city officials need to know exactly where these food trucks are parked. So, in addition to mandating their location, another new ordinance requires food truck owners to allow the government to place GPS tracking devices inside the vehicles. This would help the state keep tabs on the businesses and ensure they are not parked “too close” to physical retail establishments.

Seeing this as not only a blatant act of protectionism but also as a clear violation of their privacy, food truck owners tried to fight the city ordinances in court. But unfortunately, the ordinances were upheld in the lower courts, striking a blow to entrepreneurial freedom.

The lower court held that the GPS requirement did not violate privacy since there was no “physical” intrusion by the hand of the government. It was actually argued that since private companies did the actual installing of the GPS devices, the government was not technically involved with the surveillance. But this is absolutely absurd.

Not to mention, in prior rulings, it has already been established that the government cannot skirt its responsibility by hiring third-party contractors to do their dirty work for them, like installing GPS devices.

To make matters worse, when the court made their ruling, they gave even further power to the state when it came to issuing occupational licenses. Occupational licenses are already a source of contention, as they are routinely used to keep new competitors out of a given sector. But the recent ruling actually allows the state to refuse business licenses to anyone who refuses to wave their Fourth Amendment rights by agreeing to the installment of a GPS device.

This is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. And while it may be business owners today, it could be anyone with a driver’s license tomorrow. As Ilya Shapiro says:

“Carried to its logical conclusion, such judicial indulgence would permit the government to condition issuing driver’s licenses on the installation of GPS trackers, or on standing consent to random searches of the owner’s vehicle.”

Luckily, the fight is not over yet. Cato joined with the National Food Trucks Association and the Illinois Food Truck Owners and filed a brief urging the higher court to reconsider.

If we do not have economic freedom, we do not have freedom period. It is sad that protectionism has reached such an ugly state where entrepreneurs now risk being under constant surveillance from the state.

How Protectionism and the FDA Threatened the E-Cigarette Industry

/in /by

Vaping, an alternative to smoking cigarettes, has been a growing trend, especially for millennials. Vaping allows smokers to use e-liquid, a combination of propylene glycol and vegetable oil, to create a vapor that can be inhaled through a personal vaporizer. The concept of e-liquid was invented by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik, after his father passed away from lung cancer – the result of a lifetime of smoking cigarettes.

Intended to be a safer alternative, e-liquid contains no tobacco and has been used to help those dependent on cigarettes quit smoking. Several private studies have been conducted on the safety of vaping, including a study conducted by Britain’s Royal College of Physicians – the same organization that discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1962, two years before the United States. Their study prompted the Royal College of Physicians to go so far as to say that if smokers switched to e-cigarettes, it would “prevent almost all of the harm from smoking.”

Enter the FDA

Originally passed in 2009, the Tobacco Control Act stated that all e-cigarette products released after February 15, 2007 would have to go through the “Pre-Market Tobacco Applications” process (PMTA). Though the FDA claims they cannot change the predicate date (February 15, 2007), the date itself is rather telling, since the vape market was essentially nonexistent in 2007.

Almost every vapor product currently on the market was released after February 15, 2007. This means that roughly 99 percent of the vape products being sold today will have to go through the PMTA process. Like most aspects of government bureaucracy, the PMTA process takes excessive time and money. In fact, according to the FDA, in order to get just one product through the process it takes upwards of 1,700 hours. Additionally, millions of dollars are required for each product that is going through the PMTA process.

For most vaping companies, the costs required for the PMTA process are completely unfeasible and could spell financial ruin for smaller businesses. The only companies that can afford to comply with the new regulations are the big tobacco companies, which ironically enough, are also the only companies that have vape products predating February 15, 2007.

“The agency’s economic analysis of the rule predicts that the cost of such approvals will be so high that approximately 99 percent of products on the market will not even be put through the application process,” says the American Vaping Association (AVA).

With 99 percent of the vape market wiped out as a result of the expansion of Tobacco Control Act, these new regulations will actually serve to benefit the tobacco companies.

“Despite an overabundance of distorted and misleading information propagated by some in the public health community, the science is clear – responsibly manufactured vapor products are not only a safer alternative to traditional combustible products, but also provide smokers with a viable path to reducing their tobacco consumption and quitting altogether,” said Tony Abboud, the Vapor Technology Association’s National Legislative Director.

He went on to say, “Today’s action by the FDA will do nothing to improve our nations’ public health objectives. To the contrary, today’s action will yank responsibly manufactured vapor products from the hands of adult smokers and replace them with the tobacco cigarettes they had been trying to give up.”

The Vapor Technology Association also argues that the FDA’s regulations will literally destroy a decade of innovation that turned vaping into a $3.5 billion industry in 2015 alone. They also argue that the regulations will put thousands of small and mid-size companies out of business, which ultimately benefits big tobacco.

Jared Meyer, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an emailed statement,

“While large tobacco companies will likely be able to absorb these costs, countless small manufacturers will be put out of business – leading to a less dynamic market. Without continued innovation, it will be harder for cigarette smokers to kick their deadly habit by taking up a much less harmful form of nicotine consumption.”

With several studies on the safety of vaping available, it is clear that there is more to these new regulations than just concerns over the nation’s health. Instead, it would appear that, once again, cronyism is being used in order to protect one industry over another. As far as vaping regulations are concerned, the only clear winners are big tobacco and big government.

San Francisco’s Cafeteria Ban Is Protectionism at Its Finest

/in /by

Silicon Valley is no stranger to competition. The race to produce cutting-edge tech products that set you apart from the crowd is never-ending in a sector that is constantly upgrading. And in order to dominate the market, you have to be the best. But in addition to the market pressure tech companies face when it comes to the actual products, each brand is also vying to employ the best talent.

In the hunt for talented employees, both big tech companies and smaller startups have offered perks to sweeten the deal for potential employees. Google famously provided nap pods for its employees while other tech giants have offered onsite massages and doctors in order to look more appealing for job seekers. One of the most common perks provided by tech giants is onsite cafeterias where quality food is provided to employees at no extra cost.

In addition to increasing productivity by incentivizing employees to stay onsite and take shorter lunches, offering free food also provides relief to employees. And since Silicon Valley is not known for its low cost of living, free food is a real draw for potential employees. If they were going to have to pay astronomical costs to live in the city— sometimes as high as $3,400 a month for a one-bedroom apartment—then at least they could save a few bucks by eating lunch for free. This in-kind payment may be cheaper to provide than you’d think since the company might be able to get better deals on the food than individuals, since they’re buying in bulk.

Feeding one’s workers also fosters a familial atmosphere that may increase worker loyalty.

But the era of employee cafeterias may soon be coming to an end thanks to two San Francisco city officials. City supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin recently proposed new regulations that would make onsite cafeterias illegal. If passed, the measure will ban the construction of employee cafeterias in new buildings, but existing cafeterias will be allowed to stay. Banning cafeterias in private buildings seems like an absurd quest to take on. But the new measure is more about protectionism and government control than anything else.

In 2011, tech companies were given a payroll tax break in exchange for moving into Mid-Market, a rough area in San Francisco near City Hall. The city had hoped that if these tech companies to move into the neighborhood, they would bring jobs and commerce with them. But this plan has not unfolded quite like city officials had planned.

While the tech companies themselves are doing just fine, other local businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Many restaurants, in particular, had to close due to an inability to draw in customers. Of course, the restaurateurs were naturally frustrated but they chose to blame their low sales on the tech companies.

They reasoned that since some of these companies provide cafeterias, employees were choosing to stay on site to purchase food or snacks, rather than going to a nearby restaurant or cafe. Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, supported the cafeteria ban saying, “you can’t compete with free.”

And while it is surely more convenient to blame other people than it is to reevaluate your business plan, there are many other factors to consider when looking at this struggling neighborhood.

San Francisco is infamous for being disgusting. In addition to seeing people defecate in the street, it is not uncommon to see used needles and hard drug use taking place right outside of the buildings that are currently home to Square, Twitter, and Uber. In fact, each of these buildings is heavily secured in order to keep the craziness of the streets at bay. Recently, one store owner in this neighborhood had to kick someone out of his store for taking his pants off. That same person later came back to urinate on the store’s window. However, this same business owner has also been shocked that his store isn’t thriving when clearly, there are other issues far more problematic than free cafeterias.

The presence of these tech companies cannot magically clean up the streets of San Francisco. But city officials are acting as though Square, Twitter, and Uber have somehow failing to live up to the terms of the tax break by failing to transform the city. But the only thing required of these companies in order to receive the tax break was to move into Mid-Market, which they have.

Peskin, one of the architects of the new ban, tried to blame the tech industry and their lack of community for the continued degradation of the neighborhood saying:

“We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community.”

But unfortunately for Peskin, city officials do not have the authority to dictate its residents’ behavior, especially when it comes to commerce.

James Manning, the director of user experience at Dolby Laboratories commented on the new measure to ban employee cafeterias:

“I’m not in favor of local government mandating where I can and cannot eat. The idea the food doesn’t need to be subsidized, that tech workers make so much, is a fallacy. Tech workers, the vast majority, with the cost of living here, are not wealthy.”

To be sure, when Manning speaks of subsidies, he speaks of them in a private fashion. To call these lunches “free” would be misleading, as they are subsidized by the companies and are a type of employee benefit. Choosing to offer free food to your employee is something you are doing at your own cost as a means of compensation for your employees. If, like many already do, a tech company chooses to offer onsite doctors to its employees, the government wouldn’t tell them to stop this practice because the neighborhood doctors were missing out on patients. And yet, this type of regulatory chaos is exactly what is happening with the cafeterias.

But as with most regulations, when you dig deeper you uncover the underlying motivation: protectionism from others refusing to compete.

Competition is tough. No one has ever said anything to the contrary. And when you have sacrificed your life savings to get a business off the ground only to see it fail, it is absolutely understandable for someone to be angry. But blaming others does little to remedy the problem. The same can be said for trying to legislate individual behavior in order to rig the competition; it is never justified and always wrong. But this is exactly what some of the neighboring businesses are doing.

Setting up shop in the Mid-Market neighborhood was a risk from the get go. After all, the homelessness and prevalent drug abuse had been there long before the new tech companies moved into town. Each entrepreneur knew this before opening their doors, but they relied on companies like Square and Twitter to hand them customers on a platter, rather than work for them.

Unfortunately, the food being offered at these “off-campus” restaurants was not enough to compete with the free lunch offered on site and it was certainly not enough to coax these employees out onto the dangerous streets. But this does not justify the creation of new laws.

To make matters worse for the tech companies, they are dealing with protectionism from all angles. Not only are restaurant owners angry, but other tech companies are seeing this proposed regulation as a chance to compete for talent.

“This could even the playing field a bit,” Paul Rava, the chief financial officer at Credit Sesame said. Credit Sesame is a startup that provides free credit scores and does not provide a cafeteria to its employees. Rava believes that by implementing this ban, his company along with others like Salesforce, which also does not have a cafeteria, will stand a better chance at attracting potential employees. Just like the restaurant owners, neighboring tech companies are also trying to use the government to shield themselves from competition.

The new restrictions are not set to be voted on until the fall at the earliest. One can only hope that common sense prevails in the meantime. Market competition is about a lot more than just the product you offer. Companies with great products, or great food, have often failed because their marketing strategy didn’t work, and this can also include choosing to open a business in a rough neighborhood. Location matters, especially for a restaurant, and if the neighborhood does not provide you with the sales you are looking for, you can choose to either take the risk and be ready to deal with the consequences, or move somewhere else. But resorting to protectionism in order to control the opposition is wrong. Period.

Trump’s Escalating Trade War Is Striking a Blow to “Craftrepreneurs”

/in /by

As Trump continues to wage a trade war against China, American-run businesses continue to suffer the consequences. But now, thanks to a new set of proposed tariffs, entrepreneurs, consumers, and charitable organizations could be in real trouble.

Already, the administration has levied tariffs on over $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. And the effects are being felt. Recently, American motorcycle company Harley Davidson announced that it will be moving some of its manufacturing abroad in order to recuperate from the increased prices on Chinese goods. Since many of the raw materials used to construct the bikes come from China, the new tariffs caused a major increase in manufacturing costs. And like many American companies, Harley Davidson was faced with having to either push that cost increase to the consumer by raising prices or bear the brunt of these tariffs and risk possible financial ruin.

But as if this wasn’t bad enough on its own, the Trump administration just proposed another round of tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. This comes in addition to the second round that went into effect at the end of August. But unlike the other tariffs, which focused mostly on raw materials used to make cars or, in the case of Harley Davidson, motorcycles, the new tariffs are expected to deal a blow to an entirely new consumer market. 

Tariffs and “Craftrepreneurs”

Of the 6,031 items on the new list of Chinese items to be taxed, over 500 of them are craft supplies sold in stores throughout the United States. Popsicle sticks and yarn might not seem like important items, but the craft industry is more lucrative and more important to the American economy than one might think. In fact, some might be shocked to learn that the craft supply industry accounted for over $44 billion of economic activity in 2016 alone. But there is something even more fascinating about this industry: its consumer base.

According to a testimony given last week by JOANN Fabric and Craft Stores CEO, Jill Soltau, 90 percent of the items purchased by consumers in its store are turned into other finished projects. This seems obvious enough given that it is a craft supply store. But what JOANN customers are doing with these finished products is where the story gets interesting.

For some of JOANN’s customers, these items are turned into finished craft projects that are then sold at farmers markets, local boutiques, or on sites like Etsy. If Trump’s new tariffs are put into place, many of these “craftrepreneurs” will be unable to afford the materials needed to construct their finished merchandise. And for those who depend on selling these crafts for their livelihood, this could mean major trouble.

Trump has repeatedly said that these tariffs have been imposed to teach China a lesson, but American businesses are the ones who are dealing with the negative consequences. And in addition to the entrepreneurs who sell crafts, these new tariffs also spell trouble for small craft supply stores as well.

While JOANN’s is a household name, most American craft supply retailers are independently run mom-and-pop stores. Many of which are in the heart of the Midwest and run by female business owners who cannot afford to pay more for their product. In order to make up for the increased costs of getting supplies from China, many of these business owners will be forced to lay off employees or increase the consumer prices. Additionally, this could ultimately lead to smaller businesses having to close their doors forever. Either way you look at it, these Tariffs are harming entrepreneurs, the very backbone of America.

Trade Wars Negatively Impact American Charities 

But entrepreneurs aren’t the only ones caught in the crossfires of this escalating trade war. During her testimony, Soltau also explained the impact these tariffs will have on American charities.

She said:

“Approximately one out of three items made by JOANN’s customers is given away to military veterans, the hospitalized, the poor and the underprivileged.  We know that 7 million fleece blankets and 10 million quilts are donated by our customers each year to Project Linus, church groups, veteran support groups and other charitable organizations.”

But once Trump’s new tariffs are enacted, the costs of the supplies needed to make quilts and blanket will be increased by around 25 percent, according to JOANN’s estimates. This means that many volunteers will be unable to afford to make as many blankets and quilts as they could before. One of the charities mentioned above, Project Linus, is a group who specialized in giving comforting, security blankets to sick, hospitalized children. But if the costs to make these items increase, this means fewer children receiving blankets that bring them a great deal of cheer.

Trade wars are nasty games where nobody wins and everybody loses. Trump should put a stop to this before more entrepreneurs, consumers, and charities suffer needlessly.

Local Protectionism Threatens And Limits Consumer Choice.

/in , /by

Starting my day off with butter coffee is a must. On any given day, you can open up my refrigerator and see it packed to the brim with beautiful, metallic gold, rectangular boxes, filled with rich, grass-fed Kerrygold butter just waiting to take a dip in my scalding cup of coffee.

I’m not alone in my love for this fatty beverage. “Bulletproof coffee,” as it’s called, has become a huge dietary trend over the last few years. But for Wisconsin residents who share my love of rich, full-fat, buttery caffeine, buying Kerrygold grass-fed butter within state lines just became a difficult and illegal act.

All Butter Is Not Created Equal

Bulletproof coffee is made by blending medium-chain triglyceride oil—a more concentrated form of coconut oil—and butter together with your morning coffee in order to form a thicker beverage whose consistency is similar to that of a frothy cafe latte.

For fans of this decadent and highly potent coffee, grass-fed butter is absolutely essential since it contains optimal levels of healthy fat.

Grass-fed butter is not as common in America as it is in Europe, making it harder to come by in the states. Kerrygold, the Irish brand of grass-fed butter, has been a staple in the high-fat diet community as it can be purchased almost anywhere from health food grocers like Whole Foods, to your local neighborhood grocery chain.

However, thanks to an archaic state law, Kerrygold Irish Butter is being ripped from the shelves of Wisconsin grocery stores, and consumers are not happy about it.

Resurrecting an Outdated Law

In 1970, a law was passed which required that all butter intended for commercial purposes within Wisconsin first be put before a panel of “experts” responsible for grading the product based on a set of state standards. This law, which had largely been forgotten or at least ignored for decades, has now become an issue once again thanks to the rise of high-fat diets.

For those who subscribe to high-fat lifestyles such as the Paleo, Primal Blueprint, or Ketogenic diets, butter usage is strongly encouraged, so long as that butter is grass-fed. This has caused market demand for grass-fed butter to skyrocket over the last several years, alarming Wisconsin food bureaucrats who cannot stand to see a rule being broken, no matter how arbitrary it may be.

Since Kerrygold is based in Ireland, its products do not go through the same regulatory processes as American products. Without an official American-issued quality grade, the nanny state of Wisconsin is refusing to allow this butter to be sold on its grocery store shelves, despite overwhelming consumer demand.

Now, Kerrygold butter is being pulled from shelves and store owners are being threatened with hefty fines and even jail time if they fail to comply with these state regulations.

The Butter Bootlegger

Jean Smith, a Wisconsin resident and fan of both bulletproof coffee and tea, has been one of the most outspoken voices on this matter. Commenting on the situation to a local news outlet, Smith said, “I want to please ask whoever it is that’s preventing me from getting butter in our stores here to stop it.”

Smith, whose devotion to her morning caffeine ritual is unwavering, has now been forced to make frequent trips across state lines to Nebraska, where she brings a suitcase with her in order to stock up on grass-fed butter.

“I just think it’s a little goofy that this exists and I can get it in any other state that I travel in and I’m hauling Kerrygold back in my suitcase and my coolers,” Smith said.

This Butter Tastes Like Cronyism

Wisconsin apparently takes its role as the “butter police” very seriously. The regulatory process that explains how butter is to be inspected and assessed before making it onto store shelves is several pages long and includes 32 “quality points” that each butter specimen must meet before gaining state approval.

Anyone caught bypassing this process is subject to a $1,000 fine and up to six months of jail time.

Some Wisconsin residents, Jean Smith included, worry that this butter statute has more to do with protecting the American dairy industry and less to do with protecting consumers.

“I feel suspicious. Who are you really trying to protect here? Are you protecting the consumers, are you protecting Wisconsin dairies?” Smith asked.

Given the popularity of Kerrygold’s products, consumers were obviously unconcerned with the quality of their butter. But like many government-protected industries, the U.S. dairy industry does not appear to be a fan of foreign competition and is making it difficult for Kerrygold products to get into the hands of consumers.

In Wisconsin, a state known for dairy products and especially cheeses, the dairy industry has a great deal of pull with local legislators. This pushback against foreign butter is just another example of state and private entities coming together to form a more cronyist union. Rather than allowing free and open market competition, the government is protecting an American industry from having to innovate and compete with foreign markets.

Kerrygold, which was completely ignorant about its lawbreaking, is currently working with the state in order to put its butter back on market shelves, but it is is going to be a grueling process as Wisconsin is the only state that has these strict regulations. The company must now alter its entire quality assurance process in order to appease the state and prevent the dairy industry from throwing a childish temper tantrum.

Write for CFI