There are three very popular ideas that do not work, have never worked, and logically will never work. Yet they all resurface again and again. So, though I have argued against them before, here is a nutshell argument against each of them one more time.

1. Soak the Rich

It is simply absurd to think that taking money form rich people will help anyone. Yes, int he very short term, the government will have money to spread around, but at the cost of future business investment. Rich people create jobs, either by direct investment, by putting money into stocks and bonds which allows others to create jobs, by saving which allows others to borrow that money, or by spending which creates revenues for all those businesses. (This is why luxury taxes are such a bad idea. Rich people may buy yachts and luxury cars, but poor people make,sell and service them, so you hurt the poor much more than the rich, who can go overseas to buy them.)

There is a lot of gibberish by defenders of these schemes, they argue "small business" creates X times as many jobs as big business, but that ignores a lot of important facts. First of all, a lot of small businesses also fold in the first year and take those jobs with them. Second, many "small businesses" are one or two man shows, so the only jobs are those held by the owner or his family. Third, it ignores the quality of those jobs.

But, even if we ignore those facts too, the argument is still absurd. You see, these "small businesses", though they may barely pay the owner a subsistence wage, often have enough revenues to appear "rich". If the owner took a lot of personal loans, he may have an "income" of hundreds of thousands, from which he pays hundreds in thousands of loan payments. However, on paper, he is "rich" and so gets soaked just like "big business".

So, even if we grant the dubious argument that "small business" is all we need for jobs, soak the rich schemes are still dangerous and will likely destroy jobs. Of course, the truth is, both types of businesses create jobs, and confiscating all "surplus wealth" is a simple recipe for economic stagnation. "Soak the rich" schemes end up promoting only one type of employment, the public sector, and due to inefficiencies, even there there are fewer jobs, and less highly paid, than the same amount of money would support in private enterprise.

To make it very clear, taking money from the rich does not help anyone but the government, everyone else is made poorer.

2. Gun Control

This should be incredibly obvious, but laws don't deter criminals. The one defining trait of criminals is that they break the law.

Yet time after time people tell us that the simple act of making gun ownership or possession illegal will make criminals stop using guns. The obvious question being, if criminal penalties for the other crimes they commit don't deter them, then why would the penalties for possessing guns deter them? Presumably they are using the guns to commit violent felonies, so if 10, 20, 30 year prison terms, or even the death penalty does not dissuade them, why would 1 or even 5 years on a gun charge discourage them?

Obviously, the only people discouraged by gun control laws are those who follow the law, innocent citizens who do not commit crimes. The law does nothing but promise criminals that any citizens they choose to assault will be legally disarmed. So, instead of acting as a crime deterrent, it actually encourages crimes by providing a disarmed populace for criminals to prey upon.

The most simple counter argument is this: If we have something very valuable, a bank, or a museum, or a military base, so we put up signs saying "do not rob this place" or do we place armed guards? So which will discourage crime more? Paper in law books saying "don't use a gun" or a mass of armed citizens who can hold their own against criminals?

The only counter argument to this is part and parcel of the usual liberal arrogance which sees other people as morons, and only a handful of the elect as competent. The argument is the infamous "wild west" refutation of concealed carry laws. The proponents of gun control argue that the average citizen, entrusted with a gun out in public, will be prone to just shoot at anyone they find suspicious. Or, in the racist variant, white citizens will just randomly gun down blacks on suspicion of crimes. Of course, when asked if they would behave this way, the proponents say "no, but...", then stop short as the rest of that sentence, "other people would" sounds too arrogant for most to admit.

The truth is, wherever concealed carry laws have been made more lenient, there has been no increase inc rime, no sudden spate of random shootings, the only outcome has been a general reduction in violent crime. And while some dispute that gun ownership has decreased crime, I know of none who dispute the other fact, that more widespread gun ownership and concealed carry has not resulted in more crime.

3. Universal Health Care

If the government provides something for free, people will continue to use it until the government goes bankrupt. This is true whether it is gas or food or health care. If the government provided free gasoline, I guarantee every citizen (except a few greens) would be driving a Hummer or a massive road barge, with an RV as their second car. If food were provided gratis, fillet mignon and truffles would become the most common food stuffs. It is simple human nature, if something has no cost, you will use it as much as possible.

Think of it this way, if food is free, but anything else costs money, you would be a fool to buy anything when free food could be used as a substitute. For example, why pay for pet food, when you can get free steaks to feed your dogs? Why pay for mulch when food is free and can be composted to mulch your plants? When it is without cost, an item will be used as a substitute even where it is completely inappropriate.

And health care is no different. We see it today, where ERs cannot refuse patients, but GPs can. The result? Poor people use ERs as primary care physicians, as ERs are (effectively) free. It is inefficient, and it takes more time, but the poor have nothing but time, and the cost savings are great enough to make it worth the wait.

And that is the outcome of any universal health care scheme. People would use medical care whenever they could, especially as a substitute. We would see the ballooning of cosmetic surgery, as it is cheaper than exercise if medicine is free. We would see an excessive sue of specialists rather than GPs when cost is not a consideration. And with health care being free, we would likely see a reversal of the move toward preventative care, as most preventative measures are not medical, and thus not free.

Of course,t he government planners know this, and so, though they sell the plan by talking as if all care were free and unlimited,t he truth si always that any plan requires some form of rationing. Either it involves some sort of gatekeeper, like an HMO, a bureaucrat who decides who gets care and who does not. Or else it simply involves incredibly long waits, which use the tendency of people to either give up or die to effect back door rationing.

There is one other truth that most people overlook when speaking of universal health care. All health care will still COST the same as it does now, the only difference will be who pays the providers. The proponents say that eliminating multiple payers and insurance would reduce costs sufficiently to provide for everyone, but I would argue the opposite. The additional bureaucracy, plus the demands placed by all the new recipients and the additional services they require would make it MORE costly, not less. And with the additional recipients, odds are very good that anyone who pays taxes would end up paying more while receiving less.

Admittedly, those who pay no taxes would benefit by getting substandard care for free. But as they now can get better care, though they are expected to pay at lease partly for it, it is even arguable that they would benefit. Is it better to get lousy care for free, or to have access to decent care but at a cost.

Whatever one's take on that, for anyone who does pay taxes, universal care is a net loss. There is no way around that fact. It will mean worse care, longer waits, many services simply unavailable, and all at a much greater cost, though it will be hidden in the general tax bill, so not immediately obvious.

Conclusion

These three bad ideas are hardly unique. There are many such bad ideas which have repeatedly failed yet come back again and again. But every time I see one it puzzles me. Are we so slow to learn that we cannot learn even with a dozen examples or more? What is wrong with us that we cannot see failure for what it is?