In a short essay that beautifully encapsulates a few of the most relevant arguments in classical liberalism (Over-Legislation, 1853), Herbert Spencer observed:
Did the State fulfill efficiently its unquestionable duties, there would be some excuse for this eagerness to assign it further duties. Were there no complaints of its faulty administration of justice… of its playing the tyrant where it should have been the protector… had we, in short, proved its efficiency as judge and defender… there would be some encouragement to hope for other benefits at its hands.
It is disconcerting that such words, if pronounced today in any parliamentary assembly (not to mention economics departments), would earn the one who utters them the reputation of an extremist. Isn’t it simply prudent to make sure that the government does well what it endeavors to do, before adding on its duties? Isn’t it the sort of wisdom we practice with children, making sure they do their homework and do not fail at school, before allowing them to take on whatever extracurricular activity? Isn’t it perhaps something we should do concerning our own work, checking that we are not taking on too many commitments that eventually we will fail to honor properly?
For the government, this basic wisdom seems not to apply, as it is by definition almighty. In a recent blog post, David Boaz, quoting research by Scott Lincicome, suggests that “Before we create new policies, it would behoove us to eliminate the policies that may have caused the very problem we’re trying to solve”. It is paradoxical that this form of common sense is dismissed as libertarian heterodoxy. In a saner world, it would be advocates of government intervention who would insist upon a proper and regular assessment of its works. You can believe that the government spends and decides better than individual people do, but then you should be the first to test this proposition regularly, if only to maintain public trust in government agencies. Instead people tend to believe that UNCHECKED government spends and decides better than people would. Perhaps the true political divide is not, like some of those who hold the aforementioned view tend to imply, between those who like government and those who hate it. It is between those who would give the government a blank check, and those who wouldn’t.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 1 2021 at 9:06am
“Before we create new policies, it would behoove us to eliminate the policies that may have caused the very problem we’re trying to solve.”
That would actually be very good advice to those who oppose some “new policy.” Look at what the NP is seeking to achieve. Is there some OP that has created the perceived need for the NP? If so, so shouldn’t opposition to NP be that eliminating modifying the OP is a better way of achieving the NP objective? And if it is judged that OP cannot be changed to show that given the OP, the NP would actually make the effects of the OP worse.
This still would not, however, be the Holy Grail of Libertarian policy advocacy since sometime the objective that the NP is addressing is NOT being thwarted by any particular OP that can be undone. Then the opposition need to go straight toward showing that the NP will be worse (or runs the risk of being worse, given unforeseen costs) than the status quo.
Too often I see either some OP adduced as thwarting the objective of the NP but going no farther to show how the OP could be modified, or pointing out that NP has some negative effect but w/o showing that these (whether the effects of OP or not) are NET negative.
The only real-life application of this strategy I am aware of is the YIMBY movement.
Roger McKinney
Jul 1 2021 at 9:55am
Excellent points! It’s clearly irrational. I think envy causes people to believe foolish things. The goal isn’t to improve the way the state works but to destroy the success of others, which the state does a good job at.
Billy Kaubashine
Jul 2 2021 at 10:49am
The history of government programs echos the song about the old lady who swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
When the intended outcome doesn’t happen, we are forced to swallow a bigger and bigger “solutions”.
Soon the solutions get bigger and more complex than the original problem. What to do? Force the old lady to swallow another even bigger “solution”.
Government solutions to “problems” usually follow that narrative — and the taxpayers usually wind up choking on the horse.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 3 2021 at 6:03am
Can happen, but is that a universal trajectory?
Social Security, although poorly funded with a wage tax has worked pretty well and it’s underfunding could easily be corrected by shifting to financing it with a VAT.
And policies that produced undesirable consequences (minimum wages and unemployment) could be reformed in a positive direction, say by substituting a higher EITC for increases in the minimum wage.
Comments are closed.