The fallacy of good intentions
Research has suggested that slashing the holes on salt shakers from the traditional 17 to five could cut the amount people sprinkle on their food by more than half. According to a recent Daily Mail online article, some city councils in the UK have now begun purchasing five hole salt shakers to give away, at taxpayer expense of course, to fish and chip establishments in their areas.This suggests that Oregonians might get healthier (at least politically) if we limit the number of legislators who can sprinkle new laws down on our heads by the same ratio — from the current 90 down to just 26. Maybe we can let all 90 current lawmakers bid for those 26 slots — with the winning bids payable in kicker-type checks to taxpayers. But, will this work?
Unfortunately, the fallacy here is pretty obvious. Reducing the number of holes in a salt shaker won’t necessarily cut down how much salt we use; we will just have to work harder, or longer, to get our sodium chloride fix. Same with laws; any 26 lawmakers are likely just as capable of generating the same number of rules we have to live by as are 90. But those winning bid checks would at least be a nice byproduct of this flawed attempt to shield ourselves from too many “I’m from the government and I’m here to help†public servants.
Disclaimer: Nothing stated here should be construed as casting aspersions on any of our current or future public servants. They certainly have the best of intentions. It’s just that good intentions aren’t enough when it comes to making decisions that affect other people’s lives.
Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Steve Buckstein is Director of Cascade’s Government Transparency Project and the Oregon Economic Opportunity Project. Based in Portland, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free market research center.
Disclaimer: Nothing stated here should be construed as casting aspersions on any of our current or future public servants. They certainly have the best of intentions. It’s just that good intentions aren’t enough when it comes to making decisions that affect other people’s lives.
Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Steve Buckstein is Director of Cascade’s Government Transparency Project and the Oregon Economic Opportunity Project. Based in Portland, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free market research center.
You are right....good intentions are not enough. But research followed up by action may be enough.
“They decided that the five-hole pots would reduce the amount of salt being used by more than 60 per cent yet give a ‘visually acceptable sprinkling’ that would satisfy the customer.â€
This is not the same as proclaiming that “people actually did use 60% less salt.†Even if that statement were true, it does not justify using taxpayer money to give the 5 hole shakers to restaurants.
You’re correct that the article didn’t say governments were forcing the shops to use the new shakers, but again that’s not the point. From a purely self-interest standpoint, if the research was correct then it might be in the shop owners’ economic interest to purchase new shakers themselves since doing so would save them money on their salt purchases.
The fact that the UK is already “doing good†with other people’s money through its national health service doesn’t justify “doing more good†with 5 hole salt shakers. Better that they move in the other direction.
Think of the extra arm strength from the extra shaking, all the BIG MAC, SUPER-SIZED FRIES and a COKE dieters will gain.
We should also limit the holes in the cheese containers at the PIZZA joints.
Etc, etc, etc.....salt is the least of our chubby fellows citizens problems. Sodium and salt do not have to go together, they actually made low sodium salt.
How about grills that are so small, a person can't grill more than a 4 oz portion. Smaller knives so they can't get as much BUTTER on them for their toast. Small spoons so they can't get quite as much ICE CREAM in their months.
1 - This is ample evidence that it is folly to believe in any sort of inherent wisdom in Europeans. A populace that would go for this without lynching their rulers is simply a group of idiots.
2 - I'm not sure that a single construct other than this incident could be a better illustrate the argument against government health care.
3 - How many cycles, which seem to last about ten years, of salt being good, salt being poison, will the British people go through with this before they finally grow a pair?
Actually if you ever dealt with Europeans, as I do on a daily basis and have for years. You would know that their legendary smarts and wisdom are simply that, legend.
> They spend half of what we spend on health care, have universal coverage, and have better across the board results.
And if you'll buy that, then you will also buy the concept that a man who couldn't figure out for 20 years that his minister was in the Klan is qualified to negotiate with Iran. Good luck with that!
As for myself, I put my trust not in those who quote surveys, polls or other such nonsense. I trust those who know, understand and have studied the issue. Who do I trust on this? Ted Kennedy. There is no greater supporter of national health care is there? Where did he go for his recent ailments? Not the UK, but I will give you two more guesses.
And no, I will not buy the suggestion that Ted would have gone to Europe for his medical care, but chose the substandard US so he could avoid the flight and lower his carbon footprint.
Government intrusion into and control of peoples' lives is much more accepted over there, or at least it's much more prevailant and, given the fact that the government's of Europe haven't been overthrown, it's accepted by the population. Although, given the reaction to the restrictions put on sheep farmers in Scotland and Ireland during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK last summer, perhaps some people are getting up to 'here' with government control. That one almost caused a revolution in those two countries against England.
We here in the US are moving in the same direction as far as government control/surveillance of our lives, but we're not there yet and I'd just as soon we take as long as possible getting there. The longer I have as many freedoms as I have now, the better in my opinion.
One of the things I'd like people to remember when they talk about things like universal government funded health care, among other programs, is that everytime you accept something from the government it comes with a shackle attached. Dean's argument in favor of the salt shaker program is an excelent example of the mindset that allows the shackles, a mindset that, I'm afraid to say, is becoming more common in both the government agencies and the general public in this country. The reasoning, for the salt shaker switch, is that health care is a public expense, and in order to keep that expense down as much as possible, the government encourages people, through the salt shaker offerings to the fish and chips resturants, to consume less salt and therefore become healthier. The reasoning is that it's for everyone's own good, and if people become healthier then one result with be a reduction in the need for publicly funded medical services. That's the type of logic that could eventually wind up with the government telling people how much they can eat, what they can eat, what activities they can engage in, how much excersise they should get, etc.. We are already begining to see the government try to shape individual behaviors through programs like cap and trade and congestion/corridor/cordon tolling of vehicular movements and many others.
We have this type of government control over here too, just not as much and sometimes not in the same venues as over in Europe or the UK. The seat belt law in Oregon was marketed to the voters as a way to keep people safe and reduce the cost to the public for injury and fatality accidents. The motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws were passed under the same reasoning. Banning of transfats uses the same logic - keep people healthy, reduce the cost to the public for health expenses and lost productivity in the worker, etc..
Now I'm not saying that all of these types of laws should be thrown out because they restrict an individual's freedom to do as he/she wants. But people really need to be careful what they allow the government to do and what they restrict the government from doing. In the case of the helmet and seatbelt laws, I think more good was done than harm. In the case of something like the transfat bans over in this country or the salt shaker program in England, that is lots of money spent for very little if any return. If I was the government over there and I was really worried about peoples' health, instead of worrying about how much salt people were putting on their fish and chips, I'd be more concerned about the calory intake/calory expenditure per day of the people eating the fish and chips. Which of course, would mean even more government intrusion into peoples' lives.....
Why should we change? Not because of Europe certainly. Because of us. Our health insurance system stinks and it costs way too much. Comparing our results with others is sensible if it reveals approaches that would work better for us. We do not have all the answers.
Rupert...Ted Kennedy had no need to go to Europe. He has the best available medical insurance, coverage, and doctor access right here in the US. Of course, that does not help the 50 million Americans with no insurance, nor the many who could be kicked off their insurance at a moment's notice.
But wait, I thought everything was better in Europe? I thought they lived longer, were happier and had better cheese and everything. You mean with all his money Ted didn't go to Europe and get the absolutist greatest bestest medical care in the world? I am astonished!
Ya hah - Nice try Dean - Ted didn't go to Europe because with his life, well, he knows better than to believe all that BS about how health care is in Europe. You do what you like, but like I say, I am going with those who really know and have studied the issue, and for me, that is Ted Kennedy. I guess I'm just kinda old skooul that way, I watch what people do, not what they say.
Yes...average Europeans have longer life spans and better overall health and health care than average Americans. The American average life span is 78. In western Europe it ranges from 79-82. And they spend 1/2 to 2/3 per capita what we spend for better results. And they have ZERO bankruptcies due to medical costs. Horrible, stupid socialists. Don't they get it? Socialism can't possibly work! Government is bad! Regulations are bad! Always! .Just ask Rupert.
Ask yourself this....if Ted Kennedy is so satisfied with the US health care system, why is he trying so hard to get it changed to be more like European systems (i.e. more regulated, more cost controlled, more universal). What's in it for him? He can't possibly benefit.
Now you are finally getting it, except for the last sentence. "He cant possibly benefit" should read "He wont in any way be a part of it"
So, you need to ask yourself something. Since you acknowledge Kennedy wont partake of any system he devises what does that say about it? Why would anyone want to create a system, force people into it, and then not subject themselves to it? Power, plane and simple. If it was about trying to do good for his fellow man, then he would subject himself to it. He wont, and thus the true motivation becomes quite evident.
"Doing good" does not mean donning a hair shirt to satisfy Rupert of one's altruism. Doing good can mean using one's power and influence to create an improvement in a failing, expensive, inaccesible to many health care system that will benefit others, even if one has nothing personal to gain or lose in the bargain. Kennedy has a record. He has not use his power simply to get more power or wealth, whatever you my think of his politics.
Congratulations!
You have just become the first person to achieve solo private space flight as this statement confirms you have officially left the planet earth.
Exit real world, next stop, the Crab Nebula of ludicrousness!
Set anti reason engines to warp factor 10.
Sorry, but anyone who doesnt see the absurdity of rulers mandating a system for the plebian realm but not themselves has truly gone off the deep end.
First, Kennedy is an ELECTED "ruler" of a shared rulership, not a self-appointed solitary one. Second, I clearly stated that Kennedy WOULD BE PART OF of any new health care structure. I even put that in HIGHER CASE TYPE SO YOU WOULD NOT MISS IT. But apparently you missed it anyway. Third, if ELECTED rulers devise a system we don't like, we get to elect other rulers who can change back or forward. Great system that way. Your preffered rulers have blocked major helath care reform since the Truman era. They have maintained a system that is the most expensive in the world and ranks 37th in quality. Out with the old...in with the new.
I also acknowledged the PLANET EARTH REALITY that Kennedy is rich enough to buy his way past, around, or through ANY system, whether he devises it or some other ruler. True for all rich people. What...you prefer class warfare?