Two on doing right and unintended consequences

There are two examples at American Thinker that illustrate where something that sounds like the ‘right thing’ is perhaps a selfish, one sided, and ‘wrong thing.’ The first is from Dr. Halderman who closed her practice because she

learned that employees have rights without responsibilities, and that employers are presumed guilty until proven innocent. I learned that laws and regulations are enacted without consideration of the unintended consequences, mostly by legislators who’ve never owned a business and regulatory bodies accountable to no one.

She says:

My exam room and my operating room became crowded. First came the Employment Development Department, then the Franchise Tax Board and the Board of Equalization. Then the State Compensation Fund for Worker’s Comp coverage, followed by Cal-OSHA and the Department of Consumer Affairs. Members of the plaintiff’s bar followed. Medi-Cal sent a legion of bureaucrats to fight for floor space with “administrative overseers” from Washington’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

After five years, there wasn’t any room left for my patient. I put down my stethoscope and picked up a pen.

Each of these government agencies was formed for a good cause. Each has a mission that serves society in some way. But there are consequences and they add up to defeating the purpose for which these agencies were formed. Dr. Halerman see this as wrong and is doing something about it. As a means to maintain a proper referent, she is not abandoning medical practice for politics but rather attempting to practice a role in “Thomas Jefferson’s citizen-legislature.”

to be a good legislator, I have to remain a citizen. Turning my back on the profession and the patients I love caring for would make me less effective as a representative, to say nothing of what that would mean to my patients and to me.

The other example is from Joseph Bast about the idea that Deregulation, Not Renewable Energy Mandates, Will Best Protect Both Economy and Environment.

Even with the generous subsidies lavished on them by all levels of government, however, renewable energy sources are not cost-competitive with power derived from coal, oil, or natural gas, and the measure would thus raise electricity prices for consumers and businesses.

While it sounds good, the subsidies and mandates for economically challenged power sources is a tax. It messes with the natural competition for actual market needs and that creates disruptions and distortions that adversely impact productivity and health.

plentiful, reliable, and inexpensive electricity is closely correlated with strong economic growth and rising standards of living. It’s also good for the environment: The increasing electrification of American homes and industries is one reason air pollution emissions have been falling even though population and the production of goods continue to expand.

Yes, it sounds good to promote ‘renewable’ energy sources and punish those greedy corporations and make the rich pay their fair share and protect the little guy. What sounds good has been a path to doom for many who could not discern the difference between ‘sounds good’ and ‘right.’

Comments are closed.