Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home/  Archives/ Search /Links / Quotes / Book Reviews/ Advertise /Contact us/ Subscribe /Calendar

Rules of Thumb For Making Laws - Rule #2 The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions -- So Consider Unintended Consequences, Measure Results, and Include Sunset Provisions

by Pat Pending

 Have you ever heard a lobbyist or politician introduce potential legislation by saying, "You should pass this law, because it will take money out of your pocket and put it into mine!"  Of course, nobody ever offers such a reason for passing a new law, because they know it wouldn't pass on that basis.  However, even if people's intentions really are as they claim, the actual result of a law is more often than not exactly the opposite of the stated intention.  So what can we do about it? 

 First, we should use common sense and logical analysis to look beyond the stated intentions and consider the likely results of a law -- do a real cost/benefit analysis, considering not only the expected benefits but also the likely unintended consequences.  For example, we are now hearing radio ads suggesting that increasing the price of cigarettes will be good for our children, protecting them from the evils of tobacco.  But it is already illegal for young people to buy cigarettes, and there are very serious consequences for any business that violates that law.  So the real primary effect of a tax increasing the price of cigarettes would be to take money from adult smokers and put it into the state treasury.  Another effect would be to decrease smoking by making it more expensive, which would harm the tobacco industry and tobacco farmers.  Another effect would be to encourage "black market" sales of tobacco to avoid the tax, thereby encouraging crime and corruption.  Only by considering all these potential results can anyone make a sensible decision.

 Other examples of laws that have effects substantially different from their stated purpose:

           1.  When minimum wage laws were first proposed in northern, industrial states, supposedly to help unskilled workers, their real purpose and actual result was to prevent southern Blacks from competing in the job market.

          2.  Most regulations that are supposedly intended to protect the public (such as antitrust laws and professional licensing regimes) actually serve as a vehicle by which the regulated industries use the government to protect themselves from competition, thereby resulting in actual harm to the public.  

          3.  Policies intended to help disadvantaged young people by putting them into colleges which would not have accepted them based on objective criteria actually end up harming these young people by putting them into a situation in which they are likely to fail, whereas they could have been expected to succeed quite well had they gone to a school that better matched their ability. 

 So don't be swayed by nice-sounding names and smooth-talking proponents.  Do a real, serious analysis.

Once a proposed law passes our test of hard-headed, logical analysis and really appears to be needed, we should also insist that the law include a provision to measure its results to see whether it is achieving its stated goals -- a reality check.  Also, whenever practical, a sunset provision should be included to cause the law to expire unless it is reinstated by the legislature.  These types of provisions will encourage us all to consider the actual consequences of a law -- not just the stated intentions -- and  will help prevent counterproductive laws from simply piling up on the books, continuing to do real harm.

 In some cases, a public body is faced with a proposal that involves a long-term commitment with no ability to make adjustments -- no turning back.  In those cases, we should be especially cautious.  For example, the proposed NBA arena for Louisville is being promoted as a vehicle for "economic development" and for retaining young people in the community.  While there are ways of measuring economic development and of counting the numbers of young people who stay and who leave, a bond issue that commits the taxpayers for thirty years creates a long-term commitment with no turning back, regardless of whether the project achieves its stated goals.   We know from studying history and measurements that have been taken in other places that draining the pockets of taxpayers to build arenas and similar facilities does not stimulate economic development, so we can make an educated guess about the economic development prospects of an arena.  For that reason, legislators and voters should be especially reluctant to take those kinds of risks with taxpayer money and should demand warranties and guarantees to protect the taxpayers and the economic health of the community.

 Of course, legislators and the public should also consider basic principles that have been proven to work throughout history, particularly in those cases where there is no turning back.  In the case of an arena, one basic principle is that business ventures should take their own risks and pay their own way.   Another basic principle is that power corrupts, so the more power and money that is taken from the people and given to the government beyond the basic, necessary functions the more tyrannical and corrupt the government will be.

 So, if we are smart, we will look far beyond the stated intentions and do a hard-headed, logical analysis based on available facts and data before supporting any new law. 

Rule #1 - Don't punish the victim.

Weather (Louisville)/ Mapquest / White Pages / Business Search/ CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN