The Law of Unintended Government Consequences
journalx.com
Libertarians like me like to say that private enterprise always does things better than government.
Rarely, though, do we explain why. Usually it's because government inefficiency is so blatantly obvious
we assume it's self-evident.
At other times I think it's cause we're lazy. And there's nothing worse than an ideologue spouting off
some rote memorization of cutesy bumper sticker slogans.
So let me take you through a short explanation of Trey's Law of Unintended Consequences,
Government Style.
I should note here that (duh) everything in life has unintended consequences - the actions of individuals
or businesses as well as government. The key difference is that the unintended consequences of
private actions only affect those who choose to be affected, and there's always a recourse if those
consequences affect your rights.
The consequences of government actions hurt you whether you like it or not, since it has the monopoly
power of the state and a big-ass budget to help spread the misery all around.
That said, consider this.
Environmentalists a few years back ramrodded through Congress new regulations for toilet bowl sizes
- 1.6 gallons. The bright idea was that if all new toilets only used less water to flush than the standard
2-gallon kind, then we'd save fresh water -- as if fresh water weren't the most easily renewable
resource in existence.
The unfortunate users of those new "green" toilets have found that, on average, they require two
flushing to do the job of one. Thus, one potty visit with a "green" toilet uses a more water than the old
toilets, even when it's not a bowl-winder. (Real men, of course, have always had to flush twice,
regardless of bowl capacity.)
This is a prime example of Trey's Law, and also confirms what most of us suspect of
environmentalists' "science" - i.e. it's full of it.
Or take Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for homosexuals in the military. For starters, I think
we all know that there have always been some homosexuals in the military. ("A chance to live, shower
and camp out under the stars with hundreds of virile young men? Not only will I sign, darling, I'll bring
the wine coolers.") And I'm sure they served adequately. Until their barracks mates kicked the crap
out of them for being sissies.
I won't tread in the minefield of whether it's right or wrong that some soldiers, given a choice between
olive drab boxers or briefs, prefer a lavender low-rise with mesh in the front. Or that some drill
sergeants are a little too interested in their privates. Whole 'nother argument, and whose mind could I
really change?
Clinton's compromise policy has resulted in a record-high number of court-martials for homosexuals.
Somehow I just don't think that's what the prez had in mind when he pandered to the pink lobby in
1992.
Or a generic case in point. Up to about 30 years ago, a certain few activities required permits. At first
it was limited and made sense - demolition work. Major construction in high traffic areas. Now, we
have expanded this idea to so many facets of life the average American sheep on the street naturally
assumes before you enagage in almost ANY activity, you probably need a permit - from fishing to dog
walking to staging a demonstration to just about every activity you can imagine.
This is the proper mindset for a free people? This was the intent when they passed the first, limited
zoning laws?
As scary as the law of unintended consequences is when it comes to government action, I have
something scarier. It comes from a speech a little while back by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Donna Shalala, who recently portrayed Yoda in the new Star Wars movie.
Expounding on her vision of state-sponsored (how long til it's required?) day care, Shalala described
the life of "Renata," a typical 4-year-old in the year 2004.
"Renata doesn't know any moms who don't work. Every day after kindergarten she goes to a
day-care center, funded by federal grants."
(Both parents work so they can afford to pay taxes that support government day care so that
both parents can go to work so they can afford to pay taxes that...)
Gender is a thing of the past: "Sometimes she and her best friend Josh play trucks, sometimes they
play mommy and daddy, and Josh always puts the baby to bed and changes the diapers."
(Alas, a figure skater is born. Sorry, Josh.)
Renata may not know any moms who don't work," but she knows lots of moms who are single. She
knows some children who live only with their dads, and children who live with two dads, or live with
their mothers and grandmothers. In her schoolbooks there are lots of different kinds of friends and
families."
(Just not that oppressive working dad, homemaker mom combination - outlawed by Executive
Order.)
How will we achieve this liberal utopia? "Because we made it our top priority in our communities and
in our Congress," Shalala finished.
As Hillary & Co. move in and demand more state-sponsored day care this year, I have to wonder - if
this left-wing, gender-bending, latch-key kid nightmare is the intended result of government programs,
dare we wonder what the unintended results might be?
Or, to put it a tad more bluntly - do you want Janet Reno babysitting your kids? |
