The law of unintended consequences

From CroziervisionWiki

Author: Patrick Crozier
Permalink

The law of unintended consequences states that when a state does something eg tax, regulate etc there are often (if not always) negative consequences that the state had not forseen.

Q&A

For instance?

So, you would get rid of child seatbelt laws, then?

As it happens, and although this is slightly tangental to my argument, yes, I would.

Why's that?

Because I am against safety regulation in general I tend to assume that it will be a bad thing here too

In what way?

I am not quite sure but the possibilities are that they may make things more dangerous or make life less enjoyable

Make things more dangerous?

Child seats cost money. So fewer people can afford cars. So more people walk. So more people die. Walking is one of the most dangerous forms of transport

Why are there unintended consequences?

  • There's probably an argument here about the free market providing what people want. When the market is prevented from providing it eg by law then it must be provided in some other way. For instance, in the case of rent control lots of people want to live in a particular area. Under a free market this would be resolved via the price mechanism ie prices going up. When this is prevented it provides a gap in the market for thuggery.
  • it is, of course, possible that these consequences are not unintended at all

Comments

If you would like to comment on this article I suggest you make it here rather than attempting to use the Talk/Discussion page. I have recently received a large amount of Wiki spam and the only effective way of preventing it is to prevent the unmoderated creation of new accounts without which the page is uneditable (unless your name is Kieran or Jax).