close

Agriculture is a growing industry. In a day when the nation has now has the ability to produce more agricultural products than prior generations, it has become apparent that agriculture is an industry where innovative business models and technologies have extraordinary potential. Despite this success, there has been a growth in regulations that inhibit this innovation.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the nation’s agricultural per-capita production has increased by almost 300 percent since 1948. While there was relatively little change in the inputs, the growth compounded. What is the cause of this? Studies by the USDA found that much of this growth was driven by the adoption of innovative business models and new technologies.

While innovations in technology and business carry a directly positive effect for agricultural growth, there is an opposite effect when regulations increase.  Ultimately, there are two main jurisdictions for agricultural regulation, the state government and the federal government.

A Purdue University analysis of the agricultural regulations imposed on the federal level from 1997 to 2012 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USDA found that the regulations had a substantial impact on innovative growth in productivity.  Because of USDA regulations, the study found a 24.7 percent decrease in productivity growth, for EPA regulations, the study found a 36.8 percent decrease in productivity growth.

Despite such dismal effects of regulation on growth, federal agricultural regulation has only increased since the Purdue study’s 2012 end year. A 2018 study conducted by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and again, the USDA itself, had similar findings. Stating that “growth in total regulatory restrictions has a negative relationship with growth in crop yield.” This federal environment has led to calls from groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation for a decrease in these excessive regulations, citing a fundamental issue with the extent and enforcement of federal agricultural regulations.

While state-level regulations have varied across the nation, these state-level regulations can inhibit agricultural innovation and growth as well. The extent and enforcement of agricultural regulation is different in every state, but examples of regulatory burdens on agriculture abound. This is true both for innovative agricultural technology and innovative agricultural business models.

On the innovative technology side, California law requires all self-driving tractors to have an operator stationed in the vehicle, practically defeating the purpose of “driverless” tractors. In Mississippi, drone operators seeking to spray pesticide or fertilizer would have to get an airplane pilot’s license. This is due to an outdated requirement that all aerial applicators have a pilot’s license. Both of these rules are based on outdated laws from the 1970s, and these regulations are only two such examples of burdens that states have placed on agricultural technology.

In addition to regulations on ag-tech, many states also have regulatory burdens on innovative agri-business models as well. For several years, multiple states did not permit farmers to sell shares of their dairy herds to outside participants. In addition, several states have prohibited certain farm-to-consumer food sales from being marketed on social media, forcing many farmers to be excluded from a basic tool that other sectors are permitted to use widely.

Even a brief survey of the agricultural landscape demonstrates a need for meaningful regulatory reforms. Farmers across the state and country have recently battled economic downturns, natural disasters, a global pandemic, and numerous other challenges. The least that the government can do is remove regulations that inhibit their productivity and innovation.  While there is a myriad of agricultural regulations that should be fundamentally repealed on the state and federal level, there are also proactive reforms that could help maintain an environment that encourages growth.

With the backing of farmers and groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), many states have enacted sweeping agricultural freedom laws that have expanded access to agricultural products by consumers. Given that a large percentage of the agricultural sector centers around food production, several states looking to cut regulations have enacted “Food Freedom” laws. Many of these laws encompass reforms such as expanding farm-to-table meat sales, broadening cottage food sales, and lowering small farmers' licensing and permit requirements.

In addition to specific changes to the most commonly burdensome regulations, there is also immense potential in a regulatory exemption program. In such a program, individual farmers could request specific exemptions from excessive agricultural regulations that do not affect health or safety. In some cases, a broad regulatory repeal like the food freedom laws may not apply to a farmer in a unique regulatory situation. 

Using such exemption programs, individual states, and even the federal government, could have platforms for farmers to continue operating and growing in the economy without being hamstrung by a one-size-fits-all approach. This “regulatory sandbox” model has a successful track record of success in other sectors, such as financial technology, and it could be a platform for farmers in unique scenarios to get the regulatory relief they need.

The outdated rules of yesterday, and arbitrary regulations of today, shouldn’t be permitted to restrict the growth of agricultural innovation and prosperity for the future. A proactive agricultural sector can only grow to its fullest potential in a free market context.

Farmers have enough challenges to face as they strive to produce products for their families, neighbors, and country. Instead of placing more burdens on these hardworking folks, sound public policy should ensure that farmers can continue to grow and innovate without having the blight of a heavy-handed government.

While noble in making the federal government mostly harmless, the Articles of Confederation (the country’s first governing document) approved only one legislative chamber, relied on voluntary tax support, and had no common currency or central military, among other issues. To effectively run a country consisting of independent states, there needed to be some common procedure. As more and more states became interested in amending the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia, PA on May 25, 1787. It was quickly agreed that simple changes would not work. Instead, the entire document needed to be replaced. This meeting became the Constitutional Convention.

The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included an executive branch, a representative legislature, and a federal judiciary. The document was remarkable, but deeply flawed. The main issue being that it did not include a specific declaration of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle for ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved.

Recently freed from a monarchy, the American people wanted guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech and religion, nor upon their right from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to… and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” In 1791 the United States Bill of Rights became the Constitution's first ten amendments and the law of the land.

This said, it must be noted that it, no matter the language, did not include everyone. For instance, women and property-less men were second-class citizens, unable even to vote. Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system and governed by treaties. Slavery was legal and the slaves had no access to the rule of law. But, as the preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…” The key words here are, “in order to form a more perfect union.”

The US will never be perfect, but we must always strive to be, and we have made great progress in doing so. Jefferson once wrote to Lafayette, “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed.” He was correct, but through civil rights, innovation, individualism, and economic liberalism, this American experiment has prevailed. We have become an example to other nations and are the “shining city upon a hill” – and we will continue this course. Additional amendments were later added to extend its protection of rights to all people, regardless of race or gender, and to keep state and local governments from violating the people’s rights. The Bill of Rights is the perfect example of believing in your fellow man.

This Bill of Rights Day, we should be grateful and celebrate our basic liberties reiterated in the text of the same name. It has proven to be one of the most influential documents in contemporary history, codifying the theory of natural rights, which holds that humans are granted certain liberties by God, God alone, and that no one should have the power to infringe them.

Mississippi has a challenge in front of them as it continues to address the economic problems that face our nation.  One factor that needs to be addressed in this complex issue is the number of regulations within the state. As an underlying cause of these regulatory excesses, the state has dozens of regulatory boards and agencies, with many barely even cataloged by the state government itself.

The number of regulatory boards has become bloated to the point that it is hard to keep track of what board oversees what regulation. To date, there is not even a comprehensive list of all the agencies, boards, and commissions that exist within the state.

Ultimately this reflects on government inefficiency and excessive control of the economy. Given the right context and purpose, regulations can serve as a helpful tool in ensuring fair and open competition.  Now, however, regulations are often used as a political weapon to stomp out competition and economic progress. The proliferation of new rules, boards, and agencies is commonplace. In fact, this is so much the case that the legislature has no standardized system in place to notify stakeholders in government and the populace when a board is created or repealed.

Having so many regulatory boards has practical consequences. In 2018, the George Mason Mercatus Center and the MCPP reported a snapshot of Mississippi’s current regulatory scheme.  We found that Mississippi’s Administrative Code is far more expansive in terms of regulations than it needs to be.  In fact, it totals 117,558 restrictions, is comprised of 9.3 million words, and if you sat down and read it, it would take 13 weeks to read!

This does not necessarily mean regulations do not have their place.  Regulations are, after all, enumerated powers given to state legislatures as a tool to govern.  However, such power must come with limits.  For one, overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth, a necessary component to society, especially during these times.  As Broughel notes, such a system of regulations, over time, has a detrimental impact on the economy.  In fact, if a cap on regulations was established and the state simply kept that number for a couple of years, the economy could grow substantially.

On another note, overregulation places a greater burden on the government to ensure that various provisions are met.  When a government grows, it becomes harder to manage it efficiently.  The net result is an economy that is snuffled out by too much oversight and a government that is overwhelmed with too many rules and regulators to keep track of.

If Mississippi desires to become a top state that provides incentives for families and businesses to come and settle there, the state has to get a handle on its regulatory schemes.  In previous legislative sessions, policies have been proposed to do just that.  However, there have not been enough significant policy reforms that would manage this problem effectively.  As we move into the next legislative session, it should be a top priority to lessen the state government's hold on the economy by diminishing the extensive nature of its state regulations. While the government uses regulations as a context to insist that the people are accountable to its authority, how can the people themselves hold the government accountable if the state itself does not even know how many regulators there are? Rather than having a system that lacks accountability and burdens its people, the Magnolia State needs a regulatory overhaul. Meaningful reforms would ensure that every regulation serves a legitimate purpose and that every regulatory authority has transparency before the people it serves. It’s time for Mississippi to move forward.

The drone market has expanded exponentially in recent years, and it's no secret that the amount of drones in the sky has grown with it. As drones increase, potentially conflicting interests between property owners and drone operators could escalate. However, sound public policy could help alleviate these conflicts.

By their very nature, drones frequently fly over property boundaries for a variety of purposes. This makes them not too dissimilar to a plane in some ways. However, the differences between drones and their larger counterparts is the height above the ground that many fly, and the capacity of drones to be a nuisance to property owners in some instances. While the Federal Aviation Administration has generally held that crewed planes cannot fly below 500 feet, many drones fly at heights that are far lower.

This is where the issue of air property rights comes in, and with it, the need to achieve a balance between property rights and economic freedom for drone operators. While the issue of low altitude drone flights and property rights is complex, a basic starting point would be for the state to clarify the rights of property owners and drone operators.

The state of Mississippi does not currently have any provisions that address the issue of drones and property rights. Instead, the state only refers to property rights in the traditional context of physical property. Not only can this leave drone operators with an ambiguous understanding of the property boundaries, but it is also unclear for property owners as well. This leads to confusion.

For instance, it is a federal crime to destroy a drone (such as with a firearm), since the FAA considers it the same as shooting down a plane. Yet, the state-level air property law uncertainty can get especially complex when considered in light of the Mississippi trespassing law. State policy gives property owners the right to confront intrusions on their physical property and even destroy blatant intrusions in some cases. This can lead to mistaken notions that property owners can destroy drones flying over their property.

In order to clear up this ambiguity, state lawmakers should consider the concept of defining air property rights. Air property rights have been statutorily defined in several states, with the explicit purpose of providing clarity for drone operators and property owners.

While there is some level of debate on how far above the ground a drone can fly before it becomes an infringing nuisance on property rights, some have suggested a range between 200 and 300 feet as the upper boundary of air rights. In this way, drones would not be forced into manned aircraft space (typically above 500 feet) in order to respect such air property rights. At the same time, property owners and drone operators could have a mutual understanding of where their rights are. Both parties would be aware of their lines and legal rights, which they could mutually use to their advantage in a legal context.

Mississippi state-level policy needs an air property statute that is workable for drone operators and property owners. Modern technological questions need to be addressed in a relevant way that does not rely on ambiguous physical trespass laws. Mississippi needs drone policies that accommodate the principles of free-market growth and individual property rights. A statutory definition of air property rights could be a key step in achieving that fine balance.

Like never before, the compilation of information has increased exponentially with every passing year. In recent years, more personal information has been cataloged than perhaps all of the prior centuries combined. Despite the privacy importance of this data, many policymakers have done very little to protect this data from the eye of Big Brother.

Fundamentally, most consumer electronic data reside under the electronic access of companies (such as in a cloud). While some of the data is under the sole control of individuals, most of the data is stored by companies that utilize the data in various ways. In cases of government surveillance, these companies may be all but forced to turn over their user data, without a warrant in some cases.

This brings up the fundamental question of data innovations and protection from the eye of big government. It is important to consider why data privacy is important for consumers. Rather than just simply being “users” within a broad tech ecosystem, these are individuals with their own personal lives. In light of this increased use of consumer data, there is a need for protection from government itself. There are several reasons for this.

Fundamentally, it is important to note that without the proper safeguards, every technological advancement in data collection and usage is a potential tool in the hands of government. We see this in the surveillance state of communist China. As innovation increases, the different levels of available information increase as well. While technological data collection was more limited in former days, even fingerprints and retinal scan data have become commonly harvested in the wake of new biometric technologies.

In order to grasp how new technology can be improperly used by government without proper safeguards, an example from history demonstrates how the government can “innovate” to get electronic data about citizens. Rather than it being a trend that has started in the last generation or so, using private sector technology holdings as a doorway to surveillance goes back to prior centuries. In the 1800s, government agents developed the ability to tap into privately owned telegraph wires and listen in on conversations. By the Civil War, telegraph tapping was being used for military intelligence.

Such “new” technology for government surveillance that enabled listening in on real-time communication across long distances was a massive breakthrough. The difference is especially demonstrated when compared with the “surveillance” of the Founders’ day that involved British agents manually sifting through the mail bags attached to a saddle.

Despite the massive growth in government surveillance capabilities with the advent of the telegraph, it is important to note that Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, was not a government agent. Government surveillance innovators simply harnessed his technology. In fact, the vast majority of telegraph companies were owned and operated by private companies. While the technologies being used are different, this concept of using technology and data housed within the private sector as a means of government surveillance has not gone away.   

Fast forward to the 21st century, and the telegraph has long fallen out of use. We live in a day when the free market has developed smartphones, facial recognition, fingerprint scanners, drones, location tracking, doorbell cameras, artificial intelligence, and a host of other technologies. Yet, the danger of the government indiscriminately using these new technologies to expand surveillance on its citizens has only increased.

Despite the danger of government being too indiscriminate, many companies that harvest or store user data have a history of providing government with user data, sometimes without even having a search warrant. One report that reviewed the number of law enforcement requests for data from several large technology companies found that 85 percent of the requests were granted.

In order to remedy this, some states are looking to implement proactive safeguards. Utah has passed legislation prohibiting the government from accessing data stored by a technology company unless a search warrant is issued. This provides a key balance, ensuring that new technology provides a platform for technological advancement, not an entry point for government intrusion.

Personal information might be kept on parchment paper written on with quill and ink, or it could be stored in complex data silos hosted in a digital cloud. Regardless of the technology being used, public policy should protect the freedom of Americans by protecting their data. The protection of personal information from undue government intrusion is a timeless part of the American ideal. In order to ensure that no technology becomes a “Trojan horse” to threaten this ideal, policies should be instituted that pro-actively ensure that the government cannot strong-arm technology companies into turning over user data without accountability.

It is fairly common knowledge that many regulatory policies are arbitrarily instituted and enforced. While the existence of burdensome regulations is fairly well recognized, the specifics of just how excessive certain regulations can be is worth noting. This is especially true for new technologies and businesses that threaten entrenched interests.

At face value, the stated purpose of most regulations is to prevent some kind of harm. However, the question itself really hinges upon how regulators define the term harm. Some regulations do have a genuine intent against preventing actual harm, such as the widespread ban against driving while intoxicated. But unfortunately, the history of regulatory policy has a long history of excessive and even laughable rules.

While regulatory excesses have come in all sorts of contexts, there is a historical trend of new technologies often receiving the special ire of regulators. For instance, in the early 1900s, the advent of “horseless carriages” (better known today as cars) led to calls from some that all cars be required to follow rules that would be considered laughable today.

One such rule read: “automobiles traveling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. The driver may then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles, as before.” In addition, the proposed rules also required that cars change their paint colors every season to blend in with the scenery and not scare horses. While such rules seem comical at best in our modern context, the Pennsylvania state legislature approved the rules. The rules would have become settled law if the governor had not had enough common sense to veto them. If these rules had been enacted, there is little chance that the high speed interstates and highways of today could have become a reality.

Also in the early 1900s, the new technology of electricity had just started to become mainstream. Thomas Edison invented a form of electrical transmission to power his lightbulbs that became known as Direct Current (DC). Meanwhile, his rival, Nicholas Tesla, had developed an alternative type of current. This current was more effective at carrying electricity at long distances that became known as Alternating Current (AC).

Thus began the “War of the Currents.” Outraged at the prospect of AC current threatening the patent royalties he received from the use of DC current, Edison began a campaign to place AC current under the condemnation of regulators. He used the powers of the mainstream newspaper media as a platform to spread a hysteria known as the “Electric Wire Panic.”  He put on a series of public electrocutions of animals using AC. Edison even funded the invention of the first electric chair (using AC, of course) as another platform to place AC current in a bad light.

Edison got close to his goal of stoking enough public hysteria for regulators to ban AC current altogether, but he was never fully successful. In fact, AC current eventually won over the electric industry as a safer and more efficient current, causing Edison’s DC current to fall out of widespread use. Yet, the power of government regulation almost eliminated the technological innovation found in AC current that allowed for electricity to travel at high voltage for long distances.

Yet the excessive regulations of yesterday were not restricted to new technology alone. Much like today, businesses were restricted as well. For instance, from the 1860s to the 1920s, several states had restrictions on the ability of banks headquartered within a state to open multiple branches. In this way, expansion was impeded, and existing interests were protected from new competition. On the national level, banks that wanted to operate across multiple states had to go through an onerous process of state-by-state restrictions requiring specific government approval for expansion. In some states, national banks could not open branches at all.

Finally, with the passage of the McFadden Act in the 1920s, banks were able to have more freedom, and today we see banks freely operating across multiple states. Someone from Mississippi vacationing in Georgia can often find a branch of their home bank with little trouble. This might not be the case if regulations had not been repealed. 

While it is easy to point fingers at the past, similar regulatory absurdities exist today as well. Modern examples abound, such as excessive regulations on Bitcoin transactions and the absurd Certificate of Need laws that require new health care providers to get permission from competitors. The error of excessive regulation is no less real in 2021 than it was in 1901 or 1921. Instead of protecting old technologies and entrenched business interests, policymakers should learn from the lessons of the past and ensure that illogical regulations are placed in the dust bin of history where they belong.

In recent years, the education system has become increasingly centralized. As the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, and academic organizations have consolidated their influence, there has also been an increasingly radical push to remove even parents themselves out of the equation.

It is interesting to note that the increasing centralization of education has directly increased with the radicalization of educational priorities and agendas. Ironically this is despite the fact that many individual parents are far less likely to embrace the latest radical proposals from the Left, such as Critical Race Theory and transgender bathrooms.

However, those within the high ranks of the education establishment often buy into such priorities. According to research, many of those in high academia have gone increasingly even further to the Left. Thus, the more education is centralized, the greater the ability of the Left to advance ideologies that would not be democratically approved by the majority of parents.

These factors of polarization and radicalization have challenged much of the status quo in the education establishment. This is true both for the administrators within the system and the parents themselves.

The National School Boards Association sent a letter requesting federal law enforcement investigate certain parents who were opposed to certain policies as “domestic terrorists.” This ultimately led to the Mississippi School Boards Association announcing that it would break from the national organization.

Meanwhile, parents across the state and country are responding as well. On the one hand, parental rights and education policy have become one of the biggest hot-button issues at the ballot box. At the same time, “families have explored and adopted different approaches to schooling on an unforeseen scale.”  

Such factors shed light on a growing recognition that Washington's academic elites and education bureaucrats have overstepped their boundaries. The nature of this republic is the ability of the people to civilly push back against overreaches, whether they do it as an organization or as individuals.

This points back to the truth that an increasingly top-down structure for education is not the answer for true growth and educational excellence. Truly American education was built on the foundation that strong families, faith, limited government, and personal responsibility are the true foundation for educating the next generation. Long before the centralized educational structures of today were instituted, America still had an educated populace, that not only sustained itself – but thrived.

Perhaps the time has come that some in the American ethos are having a fundamental return back to an educational vision that seeks to preserve the things that made the nation great.  The survival of the American republic depends upon future generations that are grounded in the principles of freedom and liberty. Rather than handing this over to big office buildings in Washington and the academic elites, the success of the “American experiment” proves that individual education freedom and choice are the true avenues to make this happen.

As America prepares to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, it is important to look back and consider the lessons of our forefathers. All the way back to its humble beginnings at Plymouth Rock, the American legacy has shined as an example of what freedom and liberty can accomplish.

But in recent years, socialism has been on the rise in America. According to Pew Research, 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism. In addition, the nation has seen increasingly socialistic policies based on the concepts of big government and high taxation. In light of such circumstances, it is important to consider another episode when socialism was in America – and the failure of such socialism.

This story of socialism in America happened with none other than the Pilgrims themselves. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower, their voyage was financed by a group of investors called the Merchant Adventurers. As a means to pay back the investors, the Pilgrims initially set up a socialistic economy, with a portion of the communal proceeds going back to the investors. However, this system proved to be a failure from the start.

William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, described what happened: “The failure of this experiment... [proves] the emptiness of the theory that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in a community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”

To replace this failed approach, the Pilgrims instituted a system of private ownership, with each family having a farm to call their own. This led to the bountiful successes that culminated in long-term prosperity. Such a failure of socialism, when compared to capitalism, comes as little surprise. The basic principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility will always be more successful than the principles of coercion and a lack of private property.

From Plymouth Rock, all the way to the Soviet Union, socialism has an unbroken record of failure. The successful “American experiment” rejected socialism from its very start, and an embrace of socialism would ultimately spell its end. For the legacy of the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers to continue, the lessons of history must be heeded and followed. As families gather across the nation to thank God for the blessings of the year and look back on America’s legacy, it is important to ensure that future generations will be able to reap the blessings of freedom. As the rise of socialism seeks to undermine the country's future, a return to America’s foundation just might start by looking back to the lessons of Plymouth Rock.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Center for Public Policy today released a policy paper reiterating the case for abolishing the state income tax.

"It's time to give Mississippi a boost and get our state growing," said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. “Abolishing the state income tax would give every Mississippi worker a pay raise. It would mean they had more money to spend on their priorities and families.”

“With Mississippi’s budget in a record $ 1 billion surplus, now is the time to do it” he went on to explain. “Let’s not wait for politicians to figure out new ways to spend that surplus. Let’s use it to allow workers to keep more of their own earnings.”

MCPP's "Axe the Tax” campaign is set to popularize the argument in favor of giving Mississippi a tax break through the abolishment of the state income tax. The report highlights many key points of the argument, including:


While it failed to pass in the 2021 legislative session, it is likely the issue of income tax abolition will be featured prominently in the 2022 session. MCPP hopes to see cooperation between state leaders ahead of this and offers these recommendations to see a successful process:

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy believes repealing the Mississippi income tax would be both a moral and economic good, leading to higher incomes, competitiveness, and prosperity for all Mississippians.

You can read the FULL REPORT HERE.

For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram