Column on One Swallow

One Swallow

Tibor R. Machan

who have paid a bit of attention to my writings on public policy
probably know that I have always been an opponent of preemptive petty
tyrannies of government regulations, the sort that force people to
follow certain standards of professional conduct, including manufacture,
regardless of whether or not they have deserved to be coerced.  

the criminal law such prior restraint is seriously frowned upon but in
administrative law it is not, mainly because of two legal notions.
 These are the police power–a feudal relic if there ever was one–and
the arguably distorted provision of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
Section 8, the interstate commerce clause.

former made sense only when the monarch had been thought to be in
charge of us all, when government ruled the lives of all the subjects as
if they were children, invalids or inferiors.  The latter appeared at
first to mean only that Congress is authorized to
commerce among the several states so that these states do not behave as
economically warring or protectionist political bodies.  No duties may
be imposed between New York and Pennsylvania (etc.) was the idea, no
tariffs, nada.

now instead of tossing this police power feudal notion and being
faithful to the rational meaning of the interstate commerce clause, both
developed as weapons in the arsenals of government planners and
interventionists despite the classical liberal revolution.  This despite
the fact that neither legal measure has a leg to stand on in the court
of justice.  

perhaps practically they are unexceptionable, no?   Why would that be?
 Because, just as now and then a bit of violence among people can be
useful, so can government intervention or regulation bear some valuable

Consider what Elizabeth Kolbert wrote some time ago for the New Yorker
Web site concerning President Obama’s choice for energy secretary,
Steven Chu, and his enthusiastic defense of government intervention:

the mid-1970s, California–the state Chu lived in–set about
establishing the country’s first refrigerator-efficiency standards.
 Refrigerator manufacturers, of course, fought them.  The standards
couldn’t be met, they said, at anything like a price consumers could
afford.  California imposed the standards anyway, and then what
happened, as Chu observed, is that ‘the manufacturers had to assign the
job to the engineers, instead of to the lobbyists.’ The following
decade, standards were imposed for refrigerators nationwide.  Since
then, the size of the average American refrigerator has increased by
more than 10 percent, while the price, in inflation-adjusted dollars,
has been cut in half.  Meanwhile, energy use has dropped by two-thirds.”

give Chu credit for at least making the effort to defend government
regulation–post bureaucrats treat it as their God given authority.  But
I am also tempted to mention here how Benito Mussolini was able to make
the trains run on time back in the days he ruled Italy as a fascist
dictator.  Thus it is important here to recall a wise saying by the
ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, namely, that “
One swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy” (NE
I.1098a18).  And again, true enough, now and then smacking someone who
is acting hysterically could calm him down, yet it would be folly to
adopt smacking people around as a general policy by which to help them

again, a bit more technically, the imposition of the refrigeration
manufacturing standards in California is used by Mr. Chu as an
explanation of both the increase in the efficiency of refrigerators
nationwide and the cut in half of their price since the imposition was
made. But there is a famous fallacy of informal logic that’s in evidence
in Mr. Chu’s reasoning, namely,
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
(after this, therefore on account of this).  No one could tell at the
time the California government imposed these standards that only by
doing so will the desired efficiency and price drop be produced.
 Indeed, in many cases in which government intrudes by establishing, by
law, standards like this the market has already begun to do it, albeit
peacefully, without the use of coercive force and the heavy cost of
bureaucracy (like ho cigarette smoking began to subside way before
government waged its war on smokers).

am convinced that government regulation is an improper way to run
people’s lives, even if now and then it may appear or even prove to be a
bit helpful.  Would be good thing of Mr Chu & Co. would agree with

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s