Iain Murray says there’s no such thing, joining me and the WSJ in continuing to expose this myth. He also says that the usual economic ignorami are sponsoring a bill for a federal anti-gouging law.

I’ve got a better idea.

Paul Dietz suggested in comments that a federal anti-rent-control law should be constitutional. I would think that a federal anti-anti-gouging law (that is, a federal law that proscribed states from passing anti-gouging laws) would be as well, since the Supreme Court has essentially decided that the Commerce Clause will justify anything, and that federalism is essentially dead. After all, state anti-gouging laws cause people to drive across state borders in order to get gasoline during shortages, or more perversely, to drive to states with the laws to get cheaper gas (until it runs out). It’s exactly the same situation as we have with Canada and prescription drugs. So this clearly affects interstate commerce at least as much as a leukemia victim growing pot in their back yard. It might also have the effect of moving modern liberals even further into the previously despised federalist camp, and make them rethink their long-sought desire for Big Brother in Washington.

While I mourn the passage of federalism, we should at least take advantage of it to do some good. I would hope that if we really had a Republican congress, that an anti-anti-gouging law would have better chance of passage than an anti-gouging law. But then, I would have hoped that a supposedly Republican congress wouldn’t have exploded the federal budget over the past four years as this one has…