The regulation comes from an International Code Council (ICC) vote in 2008 that would take effect in 2011.  The ICC publishes the International Residential Code – a document used by 46 states to regulate new home construction.

Many state legislatures have been taking up the issue. California passed a mandate echoing the ICC last week.

Given all the controversy surrounding airplanes, golf tournaments, and cigarettes during this year’s South Carolina legislative session, you might not expect something like sprinkler systems to raise much of a fuss.

Yesterday, the Senate sent H 4663 – which would prohibit the enforcement of building codes like the one in California – back to the House with amendments. The Senate version restricts the enforcement of fire sprinkler mandates until at least 2014. By contrast, the House bill would have set no end date.

Part of the Senate amendments include the creation of a study committee tasked with increasing participation in a tax credit program to offset the costs of fire sprinkler system installations. This study committee would include 6 members – 4 of whom are representatives from:

• The South Carolina Fire Sprinkler Association
• The South Carolina Home Builders Association
• The South Carolina Association of Counties
• The Municipal Association of South Carolina

This committee appears to be the legislature’s attempt at mediating the battle between home builders (who oppose the mandate) and fire sprinkler manufacturers (who support it). The Cato Institute recently pointed out that the fire sprinkler industry has been a driving force behind this legislation – more sprinkler systems means more business for them.  

For the ordinary citizen, the debate is simple: Should the government mandate new homes be built with fire sprinkler systems (at a cost of thousands to home owners)? Or should givernment continue to allow individuals to decide for themselves to have such systems installed?

A recent story in the Sun News quoted a state employee insinuating that the increase in costs to home production shouldn’t matter because there are “other ways to reduce the cost.” Is the official suggesting people should forgo installing other amenities – e.g., hardwood floors or tiles or a deck – so that they can install a sprinkler system? But since when does the government have the right to tell people what amenities they should have in their homes? And make no mistake about it – a sprinkler system is an amenity – and a very expensive one at that.

This is just another example of the state trying to protect people from themselves. If a homeowner does not want to install sprinklers – which, admittedly, carries some risk – then they should have the right to do so.

But to mandate that all homes have a sprinkler system is like requiring everyone to buy a car with anti-lock brakes. Sure, it may be safer, but it should be up to the individual to decide what risks they take in their own lives.

Individual responsibility is a key part of a capitalism. The more government acts like an all-knowing, omniscient parent, and the more people give up ownership over their lives, the worse for freedom, creativity and prosperity.

In 2006, Massachusetts passes massive health care legislation that forces every resident to purchase insurance and also creates public option plan.

Results:

Billion-dollar overruns.

Long waiting periods to see a specialist: “Long wait times in Boston may be driven in part by the healthcare reform initiative that was put in place in Massachusetts in 2006.”

A shortage of primary care physicians.

And very mixed results on access and quality of care.

Not to mention, massive tax increases for middle-class families.

In 2010, Massachusetts voters elect Scott Brown, who campaigned as the 41^st Senate vote that would block ObamaCare.

RomneyCare = ObamaCare = (Tax Increases + Decline in Quality of Care) = Voter Anger

As for real reform, voters in Massachusetts did not so much vote for free-market heath care reform as against the status quo government-run system.

But given that we’ve tried government-run health care, and it’s failed, it’s time to try the free-market alternative.

This is a lesson many American families are beginning to learn. For more on that, see David Goldhill’s profound article in the Atlantic Monthly, “How American Health Care Killed My Father.”

Not only have these failed strategies not helped the average South Carolinian, they have actually made things worse by increasing taxes and stifling entrepreneurship.

To help rouse South Carolina from its economic lethargy, the Policy Council is beginning a year-long campaign to promote a new path for free enterprise and economic growth in the Palmetto State.

This effort begins tonight with the release of Unleashing Capitalism, published by the South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation.

“Our state needs a complete paradigm shift in its thinking and government policies if we’re truly going to compete and create wealth for our citizens,” says Policy Council President Ashley Landess. “Unleashing Capitalism provides a compelling roadmap for why and how to do so.”

The release of the book – edited by noted economists Peter T. Calcagno of the College of Charleston, Joshua C. Hall of Beloit College and Russell S. Sobel of West Virginia University – is the first phase of an ongoing three-part campaign by the Policy Council to promote free enterprise in South Carolina.

The book includes contributions from more than a dozen economists and other experts. Among its findings and recommendations:

• While South Carolina has an overall mid to low tax burden, our tax structure is detrimental to economic growth. For example, South Carolina has the highest manufacturing property tax in the country. Unleashing Capitalism recommends a flatter and simpler tax structure.
• Politically popular policies like “clustering” and targeted “economic development” incentives are discredited by the reports as inefficient and ineffective at generating long-term economic growth.
• The state’s recent spending increases on education have done little to improve educational performance. To reverse this trend and produce real results, the book recommends increasing educational choices and implementing weighted student funding in the public school system.

South Carolina has ranked near the bottom of the nation in economic growth pretty much since the end of the Civil War, but, as Unleashing Capitalism points out, it doesn’t have to be that way.

By embracing the ideas laid out in Unleashing Capitalism, the Palmetto State can open its doors to economic progress unparalleled in state history.

The State

The State, of course, would like to see the General Assembly institute a statewide ban on workplace smoking.

The paper contends that in addition to protecting workers from secondhand smoke, such a move ”would create a level playing field for businesses by addressing concerns that patrons might leave an establishment in a jurisdiction that bans smoking to spend money at bars, restaurants and other establishments where smoking is allowed.”

So much for the free market and letting patrons decide where they want to spend their hard-earned dollars.

As the Policy Council wrote in The S.C. General Assembly: Best & Worst of 2009, smoking is universally accepted as unhealthy, but what is even more unhealthy is ceding power to the government over such personal matters.  

Using the force of law to restrict a proprietor’s rights to run their business as they see fit violates that individual’s right to decide how their property is to be used.

What the busybodies who push for smoking bans refuse to accept is that the market can decide the issue. 

If a non-smoker doesn’t want to work in an environment where smoking is permitted, an employer’s private property rights shouldn’t be violated to accommodate that worker. While not always the easiest course of action, there are other jobs available for those unhappy with their workplace environment.

If a business owner who allows smoking loses enough talented employees because they don’t want to put up with cigarette smoke, he can either suffer the consequences, install appropriate ventilation equipment to remedy the situation or change his policy.

But the choice should be his, not rammed down his throat by government mandate.

Rather than something as draconian as a smoking ban, why not require businesses to determine their own smoking policies. Establishments can choose whether to be all-smoking, have separate smoking and non-smoking sections, or prohibit smoking.

By requiring a place of business to indicate near its entrance whether it’s a smoking establishment, customers and potential employees would be aware of the environment they’re walking into.

The other difficulty presented by the concept of a smoking ban is that it represents a creeping tyranny.

As the American Spectator pointed out, “Smoking bans have gone from California oddity to standard practice, creeping to ever more absurd extremes. Outdoor bans are increasingly common, extending to wide open beaches, parks, and golf courses. Dedicated cigar bars and tobacco shops are under fire. Even the home, the last refuge for many smokers, is no longer free from the government’s encroachment in some cities.”

Reasonable people may or may not like smoking at a restaurant, bar or place of work, but most probably feel competent to make their own choices without having the government micromanage their lives.

Today would have been Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman’s 97th birthday. The modern economic voice for capitalism and freedom, Friedman died in 2006. On his birthday today, it is an appropriate time to remember Friedman’s lessons as well as his guidance against government intrusion in the marketplace.

In 2002, Ben Bernanke, current chairman of the Federal Reserve, credited Friedman with correctly identifying the Federal Reserve as the leading cause of the Great Depression. Bernanke was referring to research Friedman did almost 40 years prior, pointing to the Fed as a major culprit in causing – and worsening – the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Milton Friedman was the first economist to write a different version of the events of the 1930s, shifting blame away from the “fallacies of the free market.” His book – cowritten with Ana Schwartz – A Monetary History of the United States, outlines the view that the Federal Reserve policies after the stock crash of 1929 negatively impacted the nation’s economy.

From 1929-1933, there was a massive deflation of the money supply – to the tune of 30%. The Federal Reserve was created to have prevented such a catastrophic collapse. With such a high demand for money, Friedman argues the Fed should have increased money supply, which could have helped slow the Depression from the start.

In order to understand Friedman’s take on the Fed, it is important to understand banking in the United States before 1913. Created in 1913, the Fed was given the task of preventing bank panics. Prior to the Fed, it was the responsibility of commercial bank clearinghouses to halt massive bank failures. In 1907 there was a panic as stocks crashed and an ensuing run on banks. However, a restriction of payments resulted, and the crisis was relatively short-lived, as economic growth resumed the next year.

But with the 1929 crash, banks assumed the Federal Reserve was there to provide assistance. The actions of the Federal Reserve during the 1930s are sadly ironic. Rather than power being dispersed among multiple private organizations, all monetary distribution rested at the Fed. And when the Fed decided to sit on its hands in 1930 and let bank after bank fail, it contradicted prior signals, leading to massive instability in the market. This essentially exponentially worsened the situation, causing the recession of 1929 to become a Great Depression well into the 1930s.

We can learn a lot from the lessons that Friedman taught us about economic growth and government actions. In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman wrote:

“The Great Depression in the United States, far from being a sign of the inherent instability of the private enterprise system, is a testament to how much harm can be done by mistakes on the part of a few men when they wield vast power over the monetary system of a country.”

One of the major reasons for the severity of today’s recession are the Fed’s actions that artificially stimulated the boom period. During the recession of 2001, the Federal Reserve continued to lower interest rates to encourage more investment – from around 6 percent in 2001 to nearly zero in 2004. This helped boost prices, which led to a massive bubble. 

When government entities begin to believe they can dictate economic directions, the path is set for more extreme downturns. South Carolina’s Legislature can learn from Friedman and end its ongoing effort to control the state economy. If we allow individual incentives and motivations to lead, recovery will come about at a faster pace.