Every citizen of every state ought to be guided by some basic principles in evaluating his government's growth initiatives. Here are seven such principles, all, however, derived from the fundamental principle first expressed as the motto of an American literary magazine, the Democratic Review (1837-1859), that "The best government is that which governs least." I prefer the logical equivalent that perhaps stresses the point better: "That government is worst that governs most."
I. The first is that the probability of any governmental initiative to succeed varies inversely with the square of its complexity. What this means is that the more complex a plan is, the less likely exponentially it is to succeed. Example: the current U.S. Democrat Health Care proposal(s).
II. The second is that the probability that a prediction will come true varies inversely with the square of the length of time involved. This means that later predictions are exponentially more likely to be false than earlier ones. Example: Al Gore’s doomsday predictions.
III. The third is that the benefit of any government plan varies directly with the square of its cost. This means that the cost of the plans increases exponentially for every additional unit of benefit. Example: every western entitlement program in existence.
IV. The fourth is that the benefits of any initiative intended to help the poor accrue exponentially more to its initiators and administrators than to its proclaimed beneficiaries. Examples: Illegal immigrant amnesty proposals.
V. The fifth is what is often called “the Law of Unintended Consequences,” and it holds that policy and legislation intended to have one set of consequences often have utterly unanticipated and undesirable ones. Hence, the adage, “be careful what you wish for.” Example: Johnson’s Welfare Policy – intended to improve the living conditions of the poor – actual consequence: an explosion of the birth rate among the poor.
VI. The sixth is that institutions meant to serve develop appetites and objectives of their own, completely distinct from those of the people they were intended to serve. This means that one should be very wary of increasing the number or the size of such institutions, since their objectives may very well not be compatible with one’s own. Examples: Dr. Frankenstein's Monster and every current government initiative in place.
VII. The seventh is that every large governmental initiative involves an enormous redistribution of income from the many to the few. This principle holds generally, regardless of whether the system of government is Socialist or Capitalist or Mixed. Example: Eisenhower's "military/industrial complex," Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” and every Soviet 5 year plan.
I'm curious: would you consider the military to be one of these government programs? On the one hand, it has a bureaucracy as does any other program; on the other, it truly represents the national interest, whereas the vast majority of other government entitlements are, by design, for the benefit of a minority of the population.
ReplyDeleteIf military/defense is subject to these rules, how would the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars fit in? Would the law of unintended consequences suggest that the military not get involved in any wars except those that are absolutely vital for national security (i.e. no democratization)?
A fair question. I think the seven principles will apply to any and all government programs, and so, of course, the military must be included. It does not follow, however, from the fact that government programs are inevitably attended with undesirable characteristics that we must reject them all. The defense of the nation is a value sufficiently great that we must pay the price, however inflated it turns out to be. It is further the case that the "democratization" of I/A is sufficiently in the national interest to also trump the cost and waste cards of the Left. A key criterion is the one that you identify, namely is the program in the interest of the entire population or only of a subset?
ReplyDeleteThe rules are intended to be cautionary, not prohibitive, and to encourage skepticism in the face of governmental expansionaist initiatives.