In the US, one of the most blatant and inadvertently hilarious examples of anti-market is in the Department of Labor’s rules on internships. Much of it is uninspiring and unworthy of comment, but rules 3 and 4 are a masterclass in economic and sociological stupidity. According to these directives, internships must abide by the following:

3) The intern does not displace regular employees but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4) The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities, and on occasion, they may impede operations.

I’m confident that most people immediately see the absurdity of these rules. Addressing the third - an intern worth having is naturally going to do the job of a regular employee. In what sense are they an intern if they aren’t?

The last is hilarious because it imagines that any business that wants to make a profit would hire an intern that made them run less efficiently. What the fuck would be the point in bringing somebody in with the express intention not to benefit from them in any way?

These shit-brained rules are some idiot’s conception of what it is to “protect” interns. In reality, an internship should mutually benefit both parties (like most good economic scenarios). The interns receive vocational education, and in exchange for this valuable tuition, the company benefits from their labour. How is this different to any other form of paid education?