A State of Altered Consequence

There are few more satisfying things in life than watching some seemingly well-intentioned (though secretly power-hungry) politician make laws that come around and negate themselves through that old bugaboo of unintended consequences. It all seemed so clear-cut they thought. We’ve identified a problem, the proles are too dense to fix it or even to realize they have a problem, we need to step in and do what we do best……Legislate.

We have to drop a quote in here from the great classical liberal political economist, and apparently one heckuva’ nice guy,  Frederic Bastiat.

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee.

So there’s my post in a nutshell. But I won’t stop there, oh no reader, I won’t stop there. I plan on detailing a few examples where things went pretty damn sour after a group of our wise overlords decided to pass a law or make some correction to fix sumpin’ that they felt needed fixed. Regardless of which side you are on in these examples the point is that there are always unseen consequences of decisions and that these consequences need to be balanced with the goal of the legislation passed. Unfortunately, that all too rarely takes place.

Example one. Banning texting while driving. Fair enough, we all know how dangerous this kind of stunt is because we can see it with our eyes. We see these featherbrains every day. Maybe reader you are one of whom I speak. But that’s not the point as they say in the fencing world. The point is that the suits step in and pass a law saying that you can’t text while driving under punishment of law. So do the people stop texting while driving? Uh, not quite. Instead the texting now goes underground in a sense as the scofflaw texters start texting frumunda. They text with the phone on the down low by their knees so as to keep from getting pinched by the 5-O. This in turn does what? It takes their eyes off the road even more than they were before when they were texting up high, loud and proud. Shazaam! The texting law makes driving more dangerous. What’s the answer? Don’t know reader, I’m just here pointing out the problems not the answers. You come up with those if you’re so high and mighty!

Anyhoo, we move on. Let’s stick with our automobile traffic theme and talk a little about signs. People need signs right? I mean how else would we function on the roads? We’re stoopid! At least that’s the common thought that goes into traffic planning and that’s why you see so many signs along our streets, highways, and by-ways. Or is it bi-ways? We’re inclusive here. Seriously though, look around next time you’re out cruising and take note of how many signs there are. It looks like driving through friggin’ Virginia Street in Reno. Also, take note of how little they tell you about things you already know and how worthless many of them are. Ask the average schlub, conditioned by a lifetime of State supervision, if people would drive more carefully and if our roads would be safer with fewer signs and the initial reaction is almost always the same. Like the guy down at my local Chinese restaurant told me when I asked if I could have all white-meat in my General Tso’s “Nevah, gohnna, hoppin.” In fact though, in a number of European towns, signs are being pulled down and roads are becoming safer. There’s a good article on the subject here. Of course the Euros, while always considered satisfied nanny-staters, have always been pretty open to “experimentation” especially Scandinavians and the Dutch. Especially the Dutch. The thing is, most of the signs are ignored by drivers anyway, and when there are fewer signs people are paying more attention to what they’re doing and nothing bad can come of that.

One more about traffic, I promise that’s it. Think about the average intersection in your town that is controlled by a traffic light. People sitting, cars idling and spewing their exhaust, you being forced to look around while waiting at a red light and seeing the guy beside you with his finger three-quarters of the way up his nose. Traffic lights slow things down, period. But at some point the town smart set decided that intersection was just too damn dangerous and the 3 eyed bandit needed to be hung there to keep drivers from killing the whole town. But what about that other way to manage a four-way intersection, the traffic circle? I remember the first time I encountered one as a driver, it was in New England which sort of like Dunkin’ Donuts franchises is polluted with the things. I approached the intersection sort of the way I approach a Tom Cruise movie. I had a lot of trepidation, assumed that it was going to be painful and that I was going to hate it, but found my self pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t so bad and before I noticed it was over and I went on with my life as if it never happened. Traffic circles work because people are paying attention, making eye contact, and actually driving rather than sitting and then moving when told to move by a colored light.

I’m done with the auto theme so let’s move on to pickpockets. There was no way to have a clean segue so I just plowed forward. Pickpockets apparently tend to congregate in certain areas. I’m just guessing but I would assume it would be in areas with a lot of tourists, with plenty of foot traffic. It seems that similar to using a bidet, it has almost been raised to an art form by the Europeans with only two cities outside of Europe (Buenos Aires and Hanoi) placing in a top ten list of worst pickpocket cities. (Not sure what the worst bidet cities are. Don’t want to know.) Well, apparently the politicians in a number of cities have addressed the problem by putting up signs warning possible “pickpocketees” (now that word is either clunky or a thing of beauty. Art is subjective!), that their wallets are at risk. Makes sense right? So as you enter the square in that gorgeous Old World city with pigeons scurrying about and bells tolling in the distance you can spot the  warning sign, comprehend its meaning, and instantly reach for your wallet to make sure it’s secure. Also lounging about on the square are the criminal element who are far less interested in pigeons and bells and far more interested in your dough which you have now conveniently revealed the location of on your less than amazing body. No fumbling around, no playing an unintentional game of grab-ass, the villain simply goes straight for your distended wallet and makes off with the cash all thanks to that friendly warning sign.

Alright, one more. I’m already way over my word limit. Let’s talk bicycle helmet laws. “Oh Gross,” says you, “don’t do it. Don’t you dare tell those helicopter parents across the land that their helmet laws, now taken as gospel, could actually be hurting the children!” Well let’s go back in time to when Gross was a little dude. The Family Gross was certainly not hovering over me and honestly in retrospect maybe they should have been a little more than they were but that’s between me and my shrink. Anyway, like a lot of people I was born with a wooden ladle in my mouth so I had a third hand, crappy red bike…. with solid tires! One time the handlebars actually came off the bike in my hands while I was riding! But that baby was mine, all mine, and when the open road called, off I went. There was no fussing with a helmet, knee and elbow pads, etc. I got a lot of exercise. Now back to the present. Here’s a study from Australia that clearly shows that helmet laws cause the amount of people riding bikes to go down and here’s one from the United States. (This immediately tightens the keister of any environmentalist who loathes the automobile), another side effect of fewer people riding bikes. Anyway, kids apparently make the choice that it would be a lot easier to head back inside for a little sedentary laxin’ than to fish out their helmet, strap in, and head off, all the time never knowing when they’ll be spotted by their generally helmet hating peers. Many believe that forcing people to wear a helmet makes it appear that cycling is a dangerous activity which cycling enthusiasts loudly say that it is not as long as some basic rules are followed. It also seems that drivers of cars give people without helmets far more space on the road than helmeted riders who they figure are just fine with that chunk of plastic on their head. Also, most kids are all too willing to take stupid risks, that’s part of growing up but will a kid with a helmet try even riskier moves on a bike than they would have without noggin protection? Makes you wonder if the people who already bike safely are the ones out there wearing a helmet and most likely wouldn’t have gotten in an accident whether they had a helmet on or not. Now injuries have no doubt fallen since helmet laws came about but so have the number of people riding so there’s certainly been a trade-off between safety and healthy physical activity. Of course, less bikers equals fewer accidents so in a sense maybe the law is working in that it keeps a certain number of people off the roads but reader what about the fat kid who instead of riding his bike goes Crisco? What about the fat kid? This bike helmet issue is a tough one. It’s like peeling the layers of an onion and you get to the center and only find a riddle, wrapped in a conundrum, inside one of those 8 ball things you shake to try to get an answer. I shook one of those in 1989 and it said “in 2012 you will write a blog that very few people will read”. I had no idea what that meant or what a blog was but now it all makes sense.

H.R. Gross