Intervention Begets Intervention...
Especially when you're talking about running other people's lives. The food-stamps-for-candy controversy provides a pretty good example of the unintended consequences of public policy.
So we want people to eat more? Give them food stamps. But they're spending the food stamps on candy and soft drinks. So we tell them that they can't spend the stamps on candy and soft drinks. Some of them sell the stamps at a discount outside the store. So we make that illegal. So we need new agencies (and new government budgets) to define what is and isn't an "acceptable" use of food stamps and to enforce food stamp regulations.
But why stop there? Why don't we go for the gusto and be completely paternalistic? Let's forbid people to use food stamps for simple carbohydrates and foods laden with hydrogenated oils. Of course, this wouldn't sit too well with snack food and agricultural lobbyists, so we would need to offer massive subsidies to sugar producers and farmers who are hurt by the new intervention...
Do we see where all this is going? The devil is quite literally in the details: a seemingly simple idea--that we want to help people who can't afford to eat--gets really complicated and really expensive really fast. As usual, Mises was right--we should try to consider the unintended consequences before we even think about opening the Pandora's Box of Public Policy.
Comments (4)
Just curious...I am a regular reader of this blog, but never posted before. I am interested in issues of safe drinking water in the developing world and whether the free market can provide it (not exactly a popular notion). When you're talking about the issue of water, it has some similarities to food, especially the idea that government programs should provide it since you can't live without it, and many people would just be too poor to afford it. The post about food stamps makes me wonder- how many people are there in America who literally can't afford to buy enough food to eat? I also get this from my local leftist rag, which is always harping on the stat that 50% of the people in my state "don't make enough to cover their basic needs" (no idea where they got this). Are we really surrounded by people who would literally starve without government assistance? I'm interested to hear your thoughts, since this is somewhat related to why people are opposed to the idea of privatizing things like water.
Published: April 30, 2004 2:58 PM
We have fresh clean drinking water because the home builder drilled a well 260 feet deep into the ground. We don't depend on the state for our water. Wells have been dug privately for thousands of years. I see no reason why the modern world should preclude private well drilling.
Published: April 30, 2004 3:31 PM
Good questions Ms. Marie.
We already have privatized water; you can buy it anywhere you want, at local supermarkets or stores.
The government creates problems of poverty through welfare schemes which take money from the rich and give it to the poor while subsidizing lazy work habits.
If people in third world countries are too poor to afford even water, then they are too poor to be taxed to create water. The government is more inefficient at supplying needs - whether it be water or even private police - than the market, and it costs more money. If people do not have the purchasing power to buy water, how would they have the economic power to be taxed by the State?
The government creates poverty and impoverishment by enacting barriers to work; things such as worker regulations, safety regulations, and minimum wage laws. By abolishing these laws and many more (including many government agencies) wealth will be created at levels never seen before in the developed world. The market, even now, steadily brings the prices of goods down, despite inflation and other government tamperings. How much easier would it be to purchase goods without the State?
Lastly, the socialist democracts like to harp on the belief that the State can solve our problems; it is the view of State as God. But we currently live in the largest government of all time - and yet we still have the problem that "50% of people cannot afford to live"? How is this possible?
Statists like to show how the State fails at problems it tries to solve, and then advocate yet more taxation and State regulations. But ask yourself this (if you haven't already implicitly found the illogical nature of this argument); imagine that company X fails in it's ability to satisfy customers. On the verge of going out of business, it makes an amazing claim; if only our customers had given us more money, this wouldn't have happened. In fact, because we don't have enough money, we failed.
Most people would balk at this (rightly) stupid claim. Think of our illustrious company X as the State.
Lastly, exactly how do liberals get around the belief that taxation is the key to civilization? If higher taxes and welfare are the keys to prosperity, why not increase taxation and welfare dramatically? Why not, in fact, take it to it's logical conclusion - communism?
Lastly, we fortunately have a working example of what happens with socialist democrats have their way with things; take a peek at Canada. See the economic wealth that is generated over there? I rest my case.
Published: April 30, 2004 3:48 PM
It is not precisely correct to say that the government owns the water rights. Various groups have various claims on river flows. The only water that is nearly unregulated is well water. Avoiding charging people the full cost of water can lead to conservation paternalism:
Complex, restrictions on what, when and how much you may water, which vary between counties.
Water police to enforce the complex regulations.
Also notable is the unfairness of the application as the result of the political interest groups, which necessarily arise:
A law that you may not receive a glass of water at a restaurant without asking. As Dave Barry would say, "I am not making this up.'(Link)
Allowances for ski resorts to produce artificial snow. Rationale: "The water will evaporate or melt and be recycled." Question to moronic public officials, "What happens to the water that you drink?" Conservation of mass says that the water either evaporates or is excreted. If the evaporated water is considered as lost, snow only has ~ 40% recovery rate.
Some counties are realizing they need to charge for water.(Link) Of course, taking this to its logical conclusion would obviate the need for fines, complex restrictions, and water police. Who ever thought that economics might work! On the downside, market economies create an incentive for theft that does not exist when resources are "free". Unfortunately, citizens do not even own the water you use, all grey water from washing machines and toilets is required to be returned to the water treatment facility presumably to discourage unsanitary conditions. Yes, the state owns your excrement.
The Platte river irrigates millions of acres of farmland and provides drinking water to more than 3.5 million people.
Agriculture uses 85 percent of the state's water, amounting to about 15 million acre-feet each year.(Link)The water board has already stated that the Front Range will need 60 percent more water in 2030 than it uses now, if growth projections are accurate.
So how do you determine the fair way to allocate available water? Right! Have everyone bid for the water, i.e., pay for it. That would mean that agriculture prices would go up until they are able to compete against what would turn out to be a better use of water, i.e., letting people drink. The rising prices of food and water would slow the growth of the population as people find they cannot afford to make more little water-evaporators and people would avoid the dry belt as they factor in the cost of living, encourage smart conservation, and achieve balance between the competing factions.
The act of intercepting and
diverting the water may violate Colorado water rights.(Link)
The fact that agriculture owns the rights (obtained from the first user is the owner principle) to 85-90% of the water in Colorado has created somewhat of a market in water.
Published: April 30, 2004 7:10 PM