"I'm from Austria! We understand economics!"

-

Because sometimes, a cartoon is worth a thousand words

-
Image credit: Jeff Danziger.
That's an actual quote by Ronald Reagan.
-

Nanny State

Jeff Jacoby in his recent op-ed column takes a jab at "nanny state," the same nanny that recently took care of two little kids who couldn't quite pull themselves up by their bootstraps on their own. I wonder why Jeff didn't include that in his column. Anyway, I do not have any ideologically-influenced absolutist position against "the state," though I do think that where state doesn't need to poke its nose, it shouldn't; and I prefer to evaluate each situation on its own merits looking at different aspects. If the outcomes of this approach come across as inconsistent, so be it.

Here's a look at Jeff's beef.

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a law banning restaurants from using trans fats when preparing food.

Health risks of trans-fat consumption are now well-known, and according to one study, Denmark's efforts to reduce trans-fat intake are likely related to a 50% decrease in deaths from ischemic heart disease. Health-conscious eaters, who till now avoided restaurants that were using trans fats, will start visiting restaurants after the ban and have more choices available to them. The ban doesn't affect someone who doesn't know or care about trans fats anyway, though it is likely to affect his health in a positive way, rest all being equal. Increased customers, and hence, more business, helps the economy, with potential to cut health risks for patrons. I believe Boston is considering a similar bill.

In Seattle, city councilors passed a measure requiring shoppers to pay 20 cents for every plastic or paper bag they use in grocery, drug, or convenience stores.

One of the reasons (based on ideology) against bans that I've heard people make, is that instead of banning, it's preferable to change people's behavior to what's desirable through economic means - by offering them monetary incentives or disincentives. So I'm somewhat puzzled as to why this measure was included in the list by Jeff when the city councilors, sorry, nannies, are doing just that. I don't see any gas stations still offering leaded gasoline and letting the customers make their own choice, and the damage done by plastic bags that end up in landfills or in the oceans is now well-documented. I've written about this issue before.

Los Angeles, a new "moratorium" forbids new fast-food restaurants within a 32-square-mile section of the city that is home to 500,000 low-income residents. "Ultimately," the moratorium's sponsor declared, "this ordinance is about providing choices."

This is a complex one, plus I don't have all the details, but based on his summary, I'll tentatively agree with Jeff here - and in my opinion, it's probably better to somehow have the fast-food restaurants include healthier options on their menus, instead of a moratorium. Actually, many neo-Marxists will agree with Jeff on this one too, so he's in good company, though I personally can't stand (some of) them.

In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed a mandatory composting-and-recycling law that would oblige residents and businesses to separate their waste into multiple color-coded bins, whose contents would be inspected by city trash collectors. Individuals failing to "separate the coffee grounds from the newspapers," the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "would face fines of up to $1,000 and eventually could have their garbage service stopped."

The idea of separating waste into organic (which can be composted) and inorganic (which cannot) and treating them separately is a good one, though the implementation (including high fines) could have been done differently. Coincidentally, yesterday I happened to come across a TED talk by Jaime Lerner (an urban planner from Brazil) on sustainable cities, where right after he compares your car to your mother-in-law (find out for yourself), he mentions how for six months, kids in schools are taught to separate garbage, who in turn pass on this new knowledge to their parents. The result is that the city of Curitiba has the highest rate of garbage separation and recycling (~70%), and a lot less of it ends up in landfills - as it should, if our existing garbage disposal systems had factored that in during the design phase. Here's an excerpt from the global ideas bank:

Recovered materials are sold to local industries. Styrofoam is shredded to stuff quilt for the poor. The recycling programme costs no more than the old landfill, but the city is cleaner, there are more jobs, farmers are supported and the poor get food and transportation. Curitiba recycles two-thirds of it (sic) garbage - one of the highest rates of any city, north or south.

In this case, going green makes perfect sense, even economically. There's no beauty in a system that places organic and inorganic matter together in the trash - in fact, it reveals ignorance on the part of the team that designed the system. Maybe it's too late for Jeff to change his ways, but I'd suggest that if possible, he send his kids or grand-kids (if he has any) to Curitiba so that they can learn some lessons on sustainable living and bring those lessons back to the US.

I'm not denying that ideologies have their place and serve a purpose, but dogmatic allegience to an ideology - while making life somewhat simpler in terms of decision-making - to the extent of not even considering other view-points has its drawbacks too. There's rational thinking, and then there's reasonable thinking. But if some folks find comfort in living by an ideology, so be it.

Regulators in Boston want to stamp out the sale of cigarettes in drugstores and on college campuses and to shut down cigar bars altogether.

While I don't smoke and consider it a stupid activity (it's a deal-breaker for me when it comes to dating women), I'm in agreement with Jeff on this one - it's an obvious case of nanny smothering the kid. If any of you smokers want my signature on a petition to oppose this measure, let me know.

Sagging pants, a ridiculous fashion trend in which pants are worn low enough to expose underwear, has been criminalized in communities from Louisiana to Michigan.

Again, I agree with Jeff. While most communities have laws against indecent exposure, I'm not sure that this trend qualifies. Then again, it could be argued that why even have laws against indecent exposure - who decides what's indecent? Good question, and that could be a whole separate debate. Nevertheless, my vote goes to "no regulation of saggy pants."

Rest of the examples he offers turn out to be pretty ridiculous attempts at regulation too. But, that still doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the government has no role to play in setting regulations. I'm glad that there's a regulation against peeing in public when convenient. Or a fine for throwing trash on a highway. Jeff mentions 'eternal vigilance' as the price of freedom, and to that, I'd add 'participation in the democratic process,' especially when some of these issues are being debated by our elected public servants before they become regulations.
-