it stays within the rules of the game." Friedman, of course, was referring to activities falling within a framework defined by the principles of a market economy, as he interprets these principles, and to activities which conform to the legal and ethical standards in the United States, as he thinks these standards should exist.
The phrase, "so long as it stays within the rules of the game," however, can be and has been interpreted in different ways by others. This proposition may be illustrated through a consideration of environmental protection.
Some people think that the long term conservation of the country's natural resources are of greater importance than are the short term profit making (and job creation) objectives of individual firms. These individuals think that conservation policies should legitimately be a part of "the rules of the game." The battles in this interest area have been particularly intense in relation to the opening of some public lands to exploration, mining, and forest operations.
Others feel that the protection of the country's natural environment the air, the water, and the land should be a part of "the rules of the game." The proponents of environmental protection secured the enactment of significant legislation at all levels of government, which was designed to protect the environment, and which created a significant regulatory authority over business and industry. There is no doubt surrounding the fact that environmental protection regulations increased the cost of doing business for many firms, and that, in some instances,
these regulations caused the sacrifice of jobs in a local area in the short term for long term environmental protection.
Environmental protection regulations can be applied to business and industry in a number of different ways; thus, the impacts of the regulations can also differ markedly. To illustrate the nuances of these differences, consider two different w...