The government always amuses me when one division provides common sense advice to the public and the remaining divisons do their best to make that advice impossible to implement. For example, emergency management groups always suggest keeping "one month of spare medication". It sounds fine, except thanks to billing practices modeled after the government, insurers are loathe to give more than a month of pills at a time, much less allow for a redundant prescription. And, if you take opiate pain relievers, you better not have more than you absolutely need. For that matter, my prescription must be picked up in person, the law prohibits calling it in to the pharmacy, and I can only receive one month at a time. I am now worrying because they are calling for more snow on top of our nearly 3 feet and I have to refill my prescription Wednesday. If I cannot physically show up, I may have to visit and ER or enjoy the lovely world of withdrawal again.

But that is hardly the only area where the government acts at cross purposes. It is in the nature of government for each divisions to engage in myopic planning, without a thought of consequences. After all, the DEA is charged with ensuring no one anywhere gets a drug they are not supposed to have. They do not suffer if people can't get drugs they need, that is not their concern. So, if the DEA makes life unpleasant for the sick, it does not impair the DEA's mission, and so they can safely ignore those concerns. (At least until it becomes a "political issue" at which time they have to suddenly reverse course, another trait which makes our government so wonderfully unpredictable.)

I wrote about this before, when discussing the FDA. They are charged with making sure food and drugs are "safe" (and "effective", but mainly "safe"). If they allow a drug that kills someone, they are in trouble. If they wrongly deny 100 functional, safe drugs, no one knows. And so, they will always favor prohibition over permissions, and risk avoidance over risk taking.

It is at this point most traditional writers would jump in with some blather about "common sense" in government, or "reform", or making sure "government is more responsive". I am afraid I can't do that, as I know the very nature of government favors myopic missions, blame avoidance, risk aversion and the rest of the traits which create just such fiascoes. It is not our specific government, or even the people involved, it is the nature of government to do so, as I described in "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises". So, rather than dream of "functional government", why not adopt a real solution? Why not limit government to those areas where it is absolutely needed? If we accept that drug use is a personal choice, and that individuals have the right to do things we consider bad, so long as they violate no one's rights, then we don't need to control access of sick people to medications, we can allow them to buy off the shelf, keep a supply, buy what they need, even choose form competing brands, rather than our current cartelized, non-competitive, over-regulated system. (See "Medical Regulation II", "The Right Way", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"".) Similarly, if we accept that fraud will exist, and should be handled after the fact as a law enforcement issue, not trying to stop it (fruitlessly) as a "regulatory" matter, we can avoid all the burden of the FDA, and do what we do now anyway, prosecute fraud after the fact*.

I could go on and on, and doubtless each example would find some in agreement, and some arguing vehemently against me, but the principle is the same. And if you admit it, you really must admit it for all. So, before you say "but that one is a GOOD regulation", ask yourself if that logic could not be applied to justify things you find offensive. And maybe, just maybe, your "good" regulation is just as damaging to someone else, as the regulators you detest are to you.

But I seem to be getting a bit far afield here. My point is, the government tends to meddle in too much, and to do it badly, and in the process creates chaotic situations which are offensive to common sense. That being the case, does it not make sense to keep the scope of government as small as possible? If government intervention tends to result in inefficient and clumsy management, doesn't it make sense to limit it to those areas where government is absolutely required, and leave the rest of our affairs in the hands of more efficient private management?

----------------------------------------------------------

* Though both right and left seem to think the FDA is wonderful, I have to ask, how do things differ since the FDA? There is still fraud, there are still quacks, and food is still sold in unfit condition. The only change seems to be legitimate businesses now have the added headache and expense of massive regulation, while the fraudulent sellers look even better as they avoid such expenses. (See "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding".)

---------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Sorry for the continued slow pace of posting. My hands have been bothering me off and on, and I am otherwise feeling ill as well, so between numb fingers and a very bad cold or flu, I haven't had it in me to write a lot. Still, I wanted to get something written, and so I posted this. It is a bit disjointed, I know, but I am going to blame that on lack of sleep. It still does make my point, I just wish it had been a bit more concise.

For a more elaborate presentation of some of the same ideas, I recommend "My Political Philosophy" or "A True Conservative Platform".