I wrote many times about interventionist economic schemes, be they fully communist, or that watered down communism that moderns call "socialism"¹, or even the modestly interventionist schemes that are now called liberalism, or even conservatism². In all this writing, one point I made consistently was that there is simply no way anyone could possess adequate information to operate such a system³. And that, given the realities of the market, it would be impossible to create an interventionist system which would be more efficient than an identical economic system run on free market principle. ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "Greed Versus Evil",  "A New Look At Intervention")  It seemed a clear enough point to me, at least the many times I wrote about it, but today I was considering this topic and I realized that some readers might draw the wrong conclusion from what I wrote⁴, imagining the argument is postulating human ability as a limiting factory, rather than an aspect of reality itself. And so, to make clear precisely what I was arguing, I want to revisit this topic, and demonstrate that, even taking their assumptions in the light most favorable to successful intervention, intrusive government simply cannot work.

Let us first make a point I should not need to make, but which will avoid much future confusion.

When we debate government economic policy, one problem that often arises, though one which is rarely explicitly discussed, is the question of how to measure success. Most people seem to imagine there is some obvious measure of economic success, but a moment's thought will show the fallacy of that premise. I suppose the most obvious, and most obviously wrong, answer is the monetary value of output. Even those with no economic knowledge can see why, I would hope. A nation could easily produce a tremendous output, worth a fortune, and yet meet none of the needs of its citizens. Imagine if a small nations devoted all of its assets to producing ultra-high end luxury cars which could be purchased by maybe 10 people on earth. In a year, they would have made all ten and sold them, as well as stockpiling hundreds more they could not sell. In addition, by devoting time to nothing else, the people themselves are left in abject poverty, without even food or clothing. Yet, looking at the numbers, the economy is quite robust, but I doubt anyone would consider such a defective system anything close to efficient.

A better method, and the one I would propose, is to evaluate the economy in terms of individual satisfaction. Of course, that too is measured in monetary terms, as no other measure is available⁵. But satisfaction has an advantage in that we recognize that the monetary figures are an approximation, and we may often have to correct for other factors. We are also aware, when dealing with satisfaction, that the monetary figures, outside of a fully free market, are distorted in very specific ways by government action and inflationary pressures, and so we are not prone to confuse the numbers with the reality.

But how to tell what "satisfaction" means? And why use it to judge our economy?

The answer is simple. Each of us works because it allows us to satisfy some want. I fall our wants were fully satisfied, if we could not improve our situation at all, and there was no prospect of future needs, then we would not work. Likewise, if work did not provide a means to satisfy our wants, we would not engage in work. We work entirely to satisfy wants.And so, as each of us judges the economy on the basis of how well it allows us to satisfy our wants, I think it only fair to judge the economy as a whole on how ell it satisfies the wants of all the citizens. In short, the best economy is the one which best satisfies the wants of the most citizens.

It seems simple enough, and an obvious choice, but there are many who disagree.

There are many who explicitly or implicitly argue that the desires of the citizens are not a valid measure, that we should judge an economy on how it "fulfills the needs" of citizens, or on how well it satisfies the "higher needs" of citizens. In other words, we should judge the output not on the basis of the satisfaction it brings to consumers, but on how well the output corresponds to the personal biases of the speaker⁶.

Not that they word it that way. Such openly arrogant disdain for fellow citizens is considered unseemly. So, instead, they speak of "conspicuous consumption" and "advertiser generated needs", and generally try to create the impression that people are deceived by various businesses and advertises, as well as peer pressure and social influences, to desire things they do not need. To make such a claim, they first must assert there is some sort of "need" which is objectively identifiable, and which should be met first. It is impossible to pin them down on precisely what these needs are, or how to differentiate a need from an invalid want, but that is because there is no way to make such a definition^7,8. The full argument can be read in the articles cited in my footnotes, but for the benefit of my readers, allow me to explain. "Need" is only meaningful in terms of a goal. There is "absolute need". Even food and water is only a "need" if one wishes to survive. It is a "need" only in terms of a goal. And a goal is only significant to the degree an individual values it. There is no absolute value to either goals or the means to achieve them. So any desire, whether called a want or need, is the same thing, a means to fulfilling a desire an individual has, given worth to the degree the individual values that satisfaction. Or, to be more concise, the value of anything rests on the subjective worth an individual gives it. Which means there is no "need" independent of a goal, and no absolute values.

Which brings me back to my original point, we can only assess an economy in terms of the satisfaction the system brings to all individual participants. We can argue whether it a system is better if it provides more overall satisfaction, despite a highly uneven distribution, or if it is preferable to have a more even distribution, but those only matter when the amounts of satisfaction are very similar. In general, we can tell which system is best by the simple measure of which has the greater overall satisfaction.

And it is from that simple definition which we can establish our argument that an interventionist economy simply cannot perform as efficiently as an economy based on private initiative.

Let us start with a very simple situation, and one favorable to the interventionist argument. One premise often put forth by interventionists is that the run of the mill consumer makes bad decisions, or plans poorly⁹, and thus needs aid, in the form of government intervention or regulation¹⁰. To allow for this argument, let us start with an economy made up of ten individuals. Nine are strong, healthy, hard working individuals, but with poor foresight and no ability to plan. The tenth individual will be a master of planning, capable of foreseeing countless obstacles and anticipating the best solution. That is about as close as we can come to the ideal circumstances from the interventionist perspective.

And this situation allows us to easily see why interventionists go wrong so quickly in their theories, and yet why those theories remain persuasive, despite their failings¹¹.

The problem with most interventionist theories is that they begin by extrapolating from relatively mundane observations, but draw from those observations the wrong conclusions. Mostly because they forget that an analogy is just that, an analogy, not an exact correspondence. They also forget that circumstances which appear somewhat similar, or which are related by analogy alone, are not necessarily as similar as we imagine.

Let us look at a normal event in everyday life. One of our less clever citizens wants to build a wall to keep in his sheep. He decides that stone is a good material, as it will last longer than wood, more than repaying his investment. And so he takes a shovel and begins to dig up some stones. All sounds fine and ordinary, until our clever citizens walks by. Seeing his friend toiling with a shovel, trying to dig up large stones, he stops and suggests his friend use a pry bar to lift the stones, rather than trying to dig them free. And for the larger stones, he suggests rigging a small pulley to lift them more easily. Finally, he suggests that maybe stone is not the best idea, as winter freezes often cause stone fences to topple, requiring time consuming repairs, making them require more labor than a wooden fence to maintain, which, added to the initial investment of labor makes the whole investment in stone fences excessive, when the same job can be done by simple wooden rails.

That situation is the on liberals imagine when they think of government. (Or one of them, we will discuss some alternative scenarios later.) In their minds, the model for good liberal government is found in the more insightful neighbor offering help to his more pedestrian fellows. And if someone thinks of it in those terms alone, it is easy to see how it could see unobjectionable. After all, in our example, the clever neighbor really did save his friend a lot of needless toil. If he had been granted the power of government, and declared that stone fences should be avoided in favor of wood, rather than simply persuading his neighbor, our example would have been no different. And from that rather cursory analysis, interventionists tend to assume that intervention is not only harmless, but beneficial.

But our example suffers from the flaws common to all those proofs which take too narrow a view. (Cf. "The Problem of the Small Picture", "Keyhole Thinking". Perhaps our example works well for the first person we encountered, and maybe for many who are in the same situation, but what about others? What about Ed who lives in the far south where there is no frost? Or Tom who lives in the swampy regions where wood rots too quickly to allow him to even maintain a wooden fence? Or Anne, whose fields are full of loose stone, but where wood is scarce? Or even Ursula, who so enjoys stone fences, for whatever reason, that she is happy to put in the extra labor, as it is far less than the enjoyment she receives? Our genius may imagine from his single encounter that he has the right answer, but in truth his experience and limited exposure has given him only a partial answer, one which works in some circumstances, but not all.

And for an average citizen, without any power, a partial answer is fine, as he will simply make his suggestions to others, and they will decide whether or not to listen. And thus his good ideas will be used by those who can benefit, and ignored by those who won't¹². But were he given government powers, circumstances change. Suddenly this partial answer is applied universally, and all are forced to live by a rule suitable for some.

Some proponents of intervention have recognized this shortcoming, and argued for more "flexible" solutions. But the problems remain in such solutions, though perhaps to a lesser degree¹³. But we shall discuss that shortly. First, let me look at the general problem a bit more.

The model imagined by most for government help is that of an expert offering assistance. Say, for instance, an individual who goes to a doctor for aid in diagnosing and treating an ailment. Or perhaps someone who hires an accountant or electrician. The interventionist imagines the government to function in much the same way. The government, employing many experts¹⁴, can then look at the circumstances prevailing in the economy, or any other part of society, determine where problems exist, and then correct those problems. Just as a doctor diagnoses and treats, government experts can identify and correct, and thus bring order and efficiency to the state, improving upon the chaotic, disorderly mess created by private action alone.("An Analogy",  "In Praise of Contracts", "Planning For Imperfection")

The problem is that the two circumstances are quite different, and it should be obvious to anyone who compares the two situations side by side. Sadly, however, most people are not adept at seeing through such faulty reasoning, and so they accept this argument at face value.

The difference, for those who fail to notice, is that doctor, the electrician, the accountant, or whatever expert is privately hired, is working under constraints set by the recipient of the advice. That is, the person who will supposedly benefit is both telling the expert what the problem to be solved is, and is in the driver's seat concerning the implementation of the final plan. On the other hand, the government expert is identifying the problems himself, without input from those who will be the supposed beneficiaries, has no idea of the desires of the recipients and leaves them no say in the final action chosen to correct this problem. In short, when an expert is privately hired, he is solely providing expert advice as to method. He is not choosing what should or should not, not imposing his values, he is just offering technical knowledge. On the other hand, when an expert is employed by the government, he is applying his prejudices, or the prejudices of his superiors (which are often called "departmental policy") or the prejudices of elected officials (called "governmental policy" or "party platform")¹⁵ in determining what is or is not a problem and he is then choosing solutions based upon his own value judgments. Yes, he is applying the same technical expertise in formulating those solutions, but that is the only way in which the two are similar. In all other ways, they are quite distinct. The hired expert abides by the values of his employer, the government expert imposes his values upon others.

However, I said I would look at a situation which shows interventionism in its best possible light, so let us, for the moment, ignore political pressures (though I will revisit them in a moment), and postulate government offices which are truly dedicated to the public, which agree with my definition of economic success, finding satisfaction in a system which provides the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number. Let us imagine that our hypothetical government is made up of only such idealists, and that each one does his best to ensure that his actions are chosen based upon the values of the people it will effect.

Which immediately brings to mind the question of how one can impose uniform rules while at the same time respecting individual values¹⁶.  As I mentioned above, some propose making such rules "flexible" to allow for individual variation, and we will look at that next, but such flexibility has its own problems, both legal and practical, and it is not a popular approach in government. And so, in practice, most government rules are applied universally. They sometimes make pieces of the law conditional, allowing for some tailoring of law to individual circumstance¹⁷, but they still, by and large, apply a single rule to one and all.

Let us look at an hypothetical example to make this more clear. Let us start with a familiar example, minimum wage laws.

Minimum wages are an example of a second type of government intervention, or rather a combination of the previous view of government with another view. In part, minimum wage is an example of government help, as it is the state telling an employee he is asking too little for his wage. On the other hand, it also falls into a second model, that of government as defender, as it is an example of the government intervening to prevent individuals with questionable motives from undertaking actions that are deemed unacceptable. These are two of the three most prominent ways in which interventionist government is viewed¹⁸.

Whether we view minimum wage as an attempt to help individuals by preventing them form selling their labor too cheaply, or to protect them from sinister exploiters who would take advantage of their lack of experience with wages, the basic principle is the same. The government expert using some criteria, has determined that no one should work for less than a set hourly wage. Obviously, there is no way this can be established with mathematical certainty, that is, we cannot determine the ideal minimum wage the way we can determine the mass of a cubic centimeter of copper, or the acceleration of gravity at sea level. So, what we have is an expression of what the bureaucrat in question considers ideal, his optimum value, balancing loss of jobs against the increase in wages, he considers this point to be optimal.

And that is where the problem becomes obvious. If the wage is set at a point where there are no jobs lost, then it is pointless, as no one was going to pay less than minimum wage¹⁹. On the other hand, if it does prevent anyone from working, then the minimum wage obviously reduces net satisfaction. How so? It is easy to see. The minimum wage will never raise wages for an individual. It may raise average wage, by chopping off the low end values, but it will never raise an individual's wage. As I wrote many times²⁰, the market guarantees an individual will be paid close to what he produces. So, minimum wage will not raise an individual wage, and so any employment taking place with minimum wages would take place without. The problem is with other jobs. In those cases, the employee and employer obviously agree that the wage is fair, or else they would not have agreed on employment. However, thanks to the bias of the bureaucrat, they are prevented from completing this contract²¹, and as a result, the net satisfaction of the entire system is lowered. Not just for those two, but also for those who would have enjoyed the goods or services produced by the employees, which now ill not exist. In short, it lowers out overall prosperity.

Of course this is but one example, but it shows the general principle. People will naturally be inclined to seek their own self interest. They will do what they think will bring them the best results. They will sell for the best price they can get, buy for the lowest price they can find, use as little effort as possible to obtain their goals and trade their least valuable asset to gain what they want the most. Yes, they may make mistakes, they may judge poorly, but once they do so, they learn that it was a mistake and begin to correct their course. There is no need for external forces to tell them to change, they change on their own.

Or, let us make this even more basic. People will undertake only actions which benefit them, and will avoid those actions which harm them. They also know best what they desire and what they do not. As a result, there is no need for laws to tell them to not do things that harm, them, or to do things that are beneficial. They will continually pursue their own well being, and will adjust their course as they see the outcome of their earlier attempts.

On the other hand, the government, at best, uses an aggregate view²² of individual desires, which will always end up disappointing at least some segment of the public. And, as the remainder were most likely already doing what is now mandated, that means there will always be a net loss of satisfaction. In addition, as any change takes time to be noticed, there will be a lag between altered circumstances and changes in policy. For an individual this can be quite rapid. As soon as he sees the new circumstances, or recognizes a change in his values, he can adapt. The state cannot. In fact, if it is a change in only some individuals, likely the state will never adapt. And even if it is a change in a large number of individuals, the change can still take quite some time, during which satisfaction is even lower, while people become more and more frustrated as the state prevents them from pursuing their wishes.

And, sadly, this is the best possible outcome. As I said at the beginning, I am assuming those running the state are interested in nothing but the well being of their wards. But even with those idealistic goals, the sad fact remains that the state cannot satisfy individual wants. The state, ideal for protecting rights and defending individuals against force and fraud, is worthless for running an economy²³.

So, what is the answer? It is quite simple. We need to adopt a system which avoids the main problem of authoritarian, interventionist systems. We must find a system of government which does depend upon the state either possessing perfect knowledge, or being capable of adjusting to events the instant they occur. What we need is a system where the reactions are rapid, but not centralized²⁴, where values are respected and actions guided by individual desires, but the remaining populace is not forced to live by the subjective values of others²⁵.

In short, the answer is a decentralized government with limited power, run on strict free market principles. With decision left largely to individuals, and the state existing solely to protect individuals against force, theft and fraud, there is not much chance for the "wrong people" to create trouble. More, with almost all decisions left individual matters, there is no need for the state to adjust to changing circumstances, only the individual, and as the individual is best situated to know his own conditions, as well as his desires, he is ideally positioned to make such changes. Leaving everything in his hands is simply the only way we can have a system which both respects individual preferences and at the same time adjusts instantly to changing circumstances^26,27.

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

1. I imagine most know this, but originally socialism and communism were used interchangeably, and some still use them that way. However, thanks to efforts of the European and American left to continue to press for communism, while avoiding being associated with the USSR during the cold war, the term "socialism" came to develop a new, vague meaning, something like "a government with a highly regimented economy, but with greater social freedom". At least that was the theory, in practice it came to mean "left leaning government on this side of the iron curtain" and described everything from moderate welfare states to outright communism. Even now it is hard to find a clear definition of "socialism", thanks to the many shifting and indefinite meanings that were ascribed to it in the past three or four decades.

2. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find a mainstream political philosophy that does not include elements of interventionism. True dedication to freedom is nearly unknown in modern politics. For some more on this topic see "The Political Spectrum", "The Best Historical Example", "A Passing Thought", "Rethinking the Scopes Trial", "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves", "Defending Freedom?", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "The Single Greatest Weakness",  "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!", "You Lose When You Think You Win" , "Why Freedom Is Essential" and "What Makes Politicians So Special?".

3. This is hardly unique to me. The argument originated, as far as I can tell, with Ludwig vonMises, being one of the strongest arguments in his work Socialism. After vonMises published this argument, it became one of the most common arguments offered by Austrian school economists against socialism and communism. Still, though I knew vonMises arguments, and had read them many times, my argument is being offered independently. VonMises influenced my thoughts, but the arguments I make here, including the rationale for each, is wholly my own, and no one else should be blamed for any shortcomings.

4. It would not be surprising if they did. I recall reading some short essay, though I forget the title, where vonMises was forced to clarify the same point, that the failure of socialism was not due to human incapacity, but the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge.

5."Monetary terms" is slightly misleading, as money is itself just a good. (Even when it is fiat currency without tangible backing.) But as money is exchanged directly against every other good, and as the uniformity and easily quantified nature of money makes it easy to use as a measure, as opposed to most goods, I suppose it is proper to distinguish money from other goods.

6. See "Absolute Values", "The Right Way", "The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism". It may also be useful to read "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences".

7. Rather than write yet another long footnote, I will simply refer readers to "The Most Misleading Word" and "Luxury and Necessity".

8. Some postulate "higher" and "lower" desires, imagining that somehow they can distinguish between more levated and more base wants. However, as any such judgment arises from a very specific philosophy, it has a limited applicability. And, even if there were some way to establish objectively what are better or worse desires, that doe snot change the fact that a given individual feels a specific desire. His desire might be base, but if it is not fulfilled, he is disappointed. So dividing wants into higher and lower is pointless, except, perhaps, to make the speaker feel superior to others.

9. This is the premise behind programs such as social security ("Social Security is Not Insurance"), minimum wage ("Adaptability and Government", "A New Look At Intervention", "When Help Hurts", "He's Bad So He Must Be Wrong"), drug laws ("Drug Legalization"), government control of education ("You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education")  and even universal health insurance ("Why Health Insurance Isn't Insurance and Related Topics", "Redefining Insurance... To Actually BE Insurance", "The Insurance Sham"). All are based upon the idea that incompetent masses need the benevolent direction of the more insightful. (Cf "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 2 - Saving You From Yourself", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 4 - Our Foolish Compatriots", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 7 - More Equal Than Others")

10.Regulation is one of the most pervasive interventionist measures, so common and accepted even those who consider themselves to the far right normally accept these measures without comment. Yet regulation is government intervention, just like all other measures. (For a discussion of regulation see "Professional Education", "Licensing", "Business Licensing and Regulation", "Bad Economics Part 12", "Real Life and Regulation", "Insider Trading", "Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding", "Medical Regulations", "Medical Regulation II", "Manipulating the Law", "Government Intervention and the Purpose of Government", "Another Thought on Regulation","Trickle Down Freedom", "The Most Misleading Word", "Salt, Transfats, DDT, Bad Science and Even Worse Law", "Selling Yourself Cheap", "Science and Government Intervention", "Why Freedom Is Essential" and "Politicians and Economic Ignorance".)

11. In this essay I am only going to concern myself with the more "high minded" arguments for interventionism and their appeal. I am ignoring for now the motives I discussed in "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Intellectual Elite", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "The Essence of Liberalism" and elsewhere. That is, the feeling of superiority that liberal theories give to some, who imagine themselves part of an elite destined to save the less enlightened masses from their own ignorance. That is clearly part of the appeal of liberalism, maybe a large part, but as this essay intends to look at liberalism in the best possible light, I will ignore it here.

12. Some interventionist theories argue that this will not work, as citizens are in general so ignorant, they cannot tell which idea is better or worse, and so cannot choose for themselves.. ("Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Chapter 5 - We Don't Need No Education ") They use this theory as grounds for demanding coercive government, as these pig-headed citizens must be made to do what is in their own best interest. (To be accurate, some theories explicitly state this. As I argue in "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", all theories of intervention must tacitly assume it, as the ability to learn invalidates most arguments for activist government. So, though they may not state it outright, lack of faith in the judgment of the masses is universal among interventionist theories.)

13. Though none recognize it, the idea of flexible solutions, or localized answers is in fact a tacit argument for the free market. After all, if we recognize that the fewer individuals subject to a given ruling the better the outcome, then does it not follow that the best solution is one tailored to each individual? And if that is the case, who could have the time and information to create an individual policy for each person? Why, the person himself! And the system that best describes is the free market, where each individual gathers information on his desires, looks at costs and benefits, and established a policy for himself.

14. This is why I describe modern interventionist theories, be they nominally liberal or conservative, as a revival of technocracy. (Cf "Some Additional Thoughts on Technocrats", "A Thought on Technology and Technocrats") It seems that all points on the political spectrum have such faith in "experts", at least within some aspects of government, that they imagine nothing more than employing the correct staff, and endowing them with the right powers, will lead to utopia.  Sadly, it seems there are very few political theories today which do not view the shortcomings of big government as problems to be solved by technical means, and instead view big government as a problem itself.(Cf "The Political Spectrum")

15. His decisions may also be colored by the prejudices of voters, though in general only likely supporters of the party in power have much say. He also may be influenced by the opinions of those who are likely to make a public stir if they disagree with his actions, be they the media or activists. And the list could probably be extended even farther. Not to mention that, while I presented each type of prejudice as distinct, most likely a bit of each will be involved in every decisions. But there is no need to go into this in much detail, as my point is simply that the government's experts impose some external values upon the public, rather than solving problems based upon the values of each member of the public.

16. Actually, the first question that came to my mind was whether it matters what experts think if they must apply a single rule, since their own opinions can have little impact if the entire policy must be formulated into a universal rule.To offer a somewhat similar example, I worked a long time ago determining eligibility for food stamps, AFDC, medical assistance and other welfare. My job was completely controlled by rules. I had no choice in eligibility, either they met very rigid rules or they did not.I could not change that, and so my own thoughts on welfare, or the recipients, were irrelevant. The rules controlled all. And in the same way, if you must have a single rule, then your dedication to making the law suit the individual is unimportant, as the need for a single law makes it impossible to do what you wish. (To be honest, I did have one or two bits of freedom. In a few cases the rules were vague enough I could choose whether or not to include certain assets or income, as well as deciding if documentation was adequate. I also had the option of advising those I liked on how best to present their information to qualify. And, finally, as I periodically reviewed my cases for fraud, comparing them to state unemployment insurance databases, obituaries, child support records and the like, I could look a bit more closely at some files and less closely at others. But that still was very little leeway, compared to the amount of control I lost to the rules.)

17. For example, some states make distinctions between drugs for personal consumption and for sale, which is basically a way to apply different laws to drug users and drug dealers based on something other than quantity of drugs or being caught in the act of selling. But, as should be clear from the many abuses of that distinction, such conditional laws tend to be a real headache in practice, as they often call for as many judgment calls as "flexible" laws do (which we will discuss shortly), and so create arbitrary rules. And those which do not tend to have other problems. But we will discuss that later as well.

18. The third model, which overlaps with the first as well, is government as mutual aid society. In this view, rather than offering advice and guidance, the government intervenes to correct situations where individuals suffer harm due to circumstances beyond their control. For example, providing aid to those with illnesses or disabilities. The definition of "beyond their control" is rather flexible, as it may include income disparities or even the consequences of bad choices, such as government flood insurance. Then again, given the rather negative view the interventionists have of the intellectual abilities of the average citizen, they may see bad choices as inevitable.

19. Though, should conditions change, minimum wage could become an issue. It is unlikely in our inflationary environment, but if there were a time with more stable currency, or even a gently deflationary currency, it is conceivable that a minimum wage once considered irrelevant could suddenly become a barrier to employment for some.

20. See "Fairness and the Free Market", Who Will Decide", "Envy Kills", "Envy And Analogy", "Saving Us From Lower Prices", "Price Gouging" and "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Or The Logical Implications of Price Gouging Laws".

21. See "In Praise of Contracts" and "Why Freedom Is Essential".

22. See "Individual and Aggregate".

23. See "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "An Analogy For Government", "A Simple Proposal", "Man's Nature and Government", "Prelude", "Negative and Positive Rights" and "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government".

24. See "Consolidation and Diffusion", "Redundancy as a Protective Measure" and "Adaptability and Government". (And for the application of a similar analysis to a different, and more limited, case see "Single Point of Failure and the FairTax".)

25. When I say "live by the subjective values of others", I am afraid I will get the same mistaken reaction that greeted my post "Absolute Values". (See "Why Republicans Lose, We Eat Our Own", "How Bizarre", "A Point I Thought Clear".) What I mean is that one individual's preferences, or his relative preference for A over B, will not be imposed on everyone. Maybe an example will help. If a bureaucrat decides his dietary preferences are the ideal, he could conceivably force everyone to abide by his beliefs, be they vegetarian, macrobiotic, Atkins diet, whatever. That would be forcing the subjective values of one individual on another. This has nothing to do with ethical relativism or any other hot button topics, it is simply a criticism of the tendency among interventionists to think their own preferences are the "rational choice", rather than simply their own preferences and nothing more.

26. And, if the individual fails to adapt, he can only blame himself, which is yet another benefit. Any failing on the part of an individual will harm only the individual himself, unlike government regulation, where a mistake on the part of a regulator may have no consequences for him, but certainly can harm many who had no part in the decision.

27. See "Planning For Imperfection" and "Greed Versus Evil " for some earlier discussions on this same topic. I would also recommend "Bad Economics Part 2", "Bad Economics Part 3", "Bad Economics Part 5", "Bad Economics Part 6", "Bad Economics Part 10", "Bad Economics Part 12" and "Bad Economics Part 17".

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

POSTSCRIPT

Some people imagine health or safety laws are an exception to this, but that is simply untrue. The arguments for these areas are the same as for all others and are just as faulty. For a more thorough discussion see "Who Is Safer?", "Worker Safety", "Salt, Transfats, DDT, Bad Science and Even Worse Law" and "Certainty and Pop Science".


POSTSCRIPT II

It may be interesting for those who enjoyed this post to also read "Bureaucratic Management", "The Bureaucratic Mind", "Bureaucracy Revisited", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing", "Adaptability and Government" and "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy".