Liberals have wonderful intentions. Most
of them believe that governmental force is the correct way to deal with social
and economic problems. “Force” being an unhappy word, liberals seldom use it.
They refer to laws and regulations. But if you fail to obey a law or
regulation, you’re punished. In almost every respect, government is force.
Recently, the government of Portland,
Maine, decided that begging in the city streets, called panhandling, was a
problem. Officials considered giving the panhandlers jobs, like cleaning up the
city parks. Let’s assume for a moment that such a law was enacted.
The city exerts two kinds of force: First,
it requires residents to pay money, called taxation. Secondly, the city
requires non-panhandlers to not be hired. There’s no choice about it. Only the
people who enacted the law have the choice. Non-panhandlers may of course lobby
the city to hire them as well.
Okay, city taxes bring in money. The
panhandlers get some of it, and liberals feel good about their intentions. What
happens next?
People who did not consider themselves
panhandlers, but are unemployed, go to the streets and start begging. Carrying
signs identifying them as genuine panhandlers, they let it be known they want
city jobs, too. Panhandlers in other cities hear that Portland is where it’s
at, and the city becomes inundated with panhandlers.
Emboldened by their entitlement as
government beneficiaries, the begging becomes aggressive. Prosperous residents
can hardly step outside without being accosted for money. Taxes are raised to
pay all the panhandlers. Portland is no longer a pleasant place to live. The
prosperous move elsewhere, the city deteriorates, and liberals wonder how
government can straighten out the mess and still care for the poor panhandlers.
Well, Portland would not allow such
deterioration, and the law would probably not be enacted in the first place.
But what if the major recipients of
government largess are unionized government workers? What if their pensions
have been raised to exorbitant levels because unions, supported by federal
laws, are wealthy enough to pay substantial campaign gifts to legislators? I
give you Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago, all of which have had liberal
leadership for decades and have lost significant populations.
I hazard the following generalizations:
One. The actual, long-term results of
big-government policies are opposite to the intended results.
Government policies that do not have
unintended results are as follows:
· Protect private
property,
· Enforce contracts,
· Adjudicate
lawsuits, and
· Keep people from
directly hurting others by force or fraud (the police power).
Two. Lobbying generally does not cause big
government; it results from it.
Three. Instead of government transfer
payments, private organizations should solicit money from the prosperous and
pay most of it, usually with conditions, to the poor. The results would be
better than government could accomplish, with far lower costs.
The actual, long-term results of
big-government policies are opposite to the intended results.
