[B]efore we impose more coercive government policies, shouldn’t we consider repealing the coercive government policies that created the problem?
—
The Trunk: Asking the Right Question
Only if 1) the government policies actually created the problem, 2) the policies aren’t preventing bigger problems, 3) removing the policies would actually solve the problem, and 4) repealing the policies would lead to a better result than new or reformed policies. I don’t blame Jeff for opposing healthcare reform. He considers all government action coercive—even if it’s simply fixing potholes. (And it is coercive—particularly when people who like potholes are forced to support pothole repair with their taxes.) Jeff has also chosen to limit his outrage to government coercion—so deception or coercion by private industry gets a lower priority. I think it’s a silly stance—but he’s entitled to it.
But for the 95% of us who like the government to provide some services and don’t mind a regulatory framework—even if that makes it a bit harder to purchase food additives that contain lead or patronize banks that may disappear overnight, this isn’t a particularly persuasive argument. Do some government policies have undesired effects? Of course, Did those policies also have their desired effects? Usually. Will a free market provide the desired effect without the undesired effect? Not necessarily. In fact, the initial policy was probably put in place because a free market hadn’t delivered something important.
There may be specific cases where repealing regulations is a good idea—but let’s talk about specific legislation. Why was it passed? Should it have been passed? Is it still necessary? Has something changed to make it unusually burdensome?
