Daffodils are poisonous for human beings and pets. Yet, they’re a popular household plant.
The bulbs look like onions or shallots, the flower is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Children might put it in their mouthes.
Therefore, I am asking that specialists act as gatekeepers to this plant. No more daffodil home-gardens and definitely no large-scale daffodil farms or greenhouses – unless sanctioned by the government.
Daffodil growers need be licensed and sell directly to retail-gatekeepers.
The Government of Canada, through the RCMP and an army of civil servants, can force the other daffodil retailers and daffodil growers out of business.
But since the daffodil licensed producers and some of the retailers aren’t crown corporations, private shareholders will only enjoy this legal monopoly provided they act in the public good.
What is the public good? Perhaps we should ask a couple large unions in British Columbia or Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
They seem to have some special knowledge of market conditions that entrepreneurs don’t have.
But taking over any industry requires some degree of competence with supply and demand factors. The problem is, there is no quantitative expertise on what these factors are.
Only the voluntary buying and selling of individuals in the market create the correct signals. Entrepreneurs use these insights to allocate supply and meet demand. The better they are, the more profit they make.
It works even better when anybody can get into business and compete, and when the banks aren’t creating money out of thin air.
No one, especially Kathleen Wynne and the LCBO, has the capability or capacity to comprehend this system.
Limiting the physical number of daffodil producers (or cannabis producers) and regulating and even sometimes managing the retailers is neither free nor will it result in the desired effect of “saving the children.”
There are always unintended consequences to government decisions. Allowing the state to centrally plan and limit competition and entrepreneurship has never worked out in the long-run.
The key is not looking at the immediate effects of all the “public” sector employment and tax-revenue, but the long-term effects of undermining the prosperity that free markets generate.
State-sector union heads and corrupt politicians are claiming expert authority for plants that are safer than daffodils.
They claim “an excellent track record” based on ignoring the current farmers and dispensaries, as well as fundamental economics. They don’t want to compete honestly, they want government-hand outs at the expense of others.
There’s no better way to repeat the mistakes of past communist regimes than by allowing a political class to undermine private property and commerce.
While bureaucratic offices and state-management may produce value for some, they don’t fundamentally create wealth.